{
  "id": 8660534,
  "name": "PINK CAMPBELL v. RALEIGH AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Campbell v. Raleigh & Charleston Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1912-10-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 N.C. 586"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "140 N. C., 422",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652223
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/140/0422-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 34",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657540
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0034-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 N. C., 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652622
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/139/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N. C., 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271732
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/153/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2806,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.438,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7636962944996102e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7104020350221191
    },
    "sha256": "97b72d64276357c5ff86287ec6739ca87645ba63df6338e4adef43d333d339d6",
    "simhash": "1:b2917592b724ae08",
    "word_count": 452
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:45.962633+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "PINK CAMPBELL v. RALEIGH AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hoke, J.\nOur statute, Revisal, sec. 394, subsec. 2, provides as follows: \u201cNo suit, action, or proceeding shall be brought or maintained against any railroad company by any person for damages caused by the construction of said road or the repairs thereto, unless such suit, action, or proceeding shall be commenced within five years after the cause of action accrues; and the jury shall assess the entire amount of damages which the party aggrieved is entitled to recover by reason of the trespass on his property.\u201d The summons in this action was first issued on 17 September, 1908, and, on a perusal of the entire testimony, that of plaintiff and others, it clearly appears that the \u25a0 embankment complained of was constructed by the Carolina Northern Bailroad Company in 1901, and has been since maintained; that the rights, and interests of said company have been duly conveyed to the present defendant, the Ealeigh and Charleston Eailroad Company. It further appears that the embankment, at the time of its erection, produced the same physical conditions, necessarily causing the same or substantial injury and interference on plaintiff\u2019s land that have existed since. Upon the admitted facts, therefore, and in any aspect of the matter, plaintiff\u2019s cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations above quoted. Pickett v. R. R., 153 N. C., 150; Stack v. R. R., 139 N. C., 366; Ridley v. R. R., 124 N. C., 34. This being true, and the statute having been properly pleaded, it would serve no good purpose to consider and pass upon the other questions presented in the record, and the judgment of nonsuit will be affirmed. Oldham v. Rieger, 145 N. C., 258; Cherry v. Canal Co., 140 N. C., 422.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hoke, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McNeill .& McNeill and Britt & Britt for plaintiff.",
      "McLean, Parser & McLean cmd McIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PINK CAMPBELL v. RALEIGH AND CHARLESTON RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 October, 1912.)\nRailroads \u2014 Construction \u2014 Embankments\u2014Damages\u2014Limitation of Actions \u2014 Interpretation of Statutes.\nAn action against a railroad company for damages caused to plaintiff\u2019s lands by an embankment built by tbe defendant\u2019s grantor, a railroad company, which at the time of its erection produced the same physical conditions, necessarily causing the same or substantial injury and interference on plaintiff\u2019s lands that have existed since, is barred by the statute of limitations after five years. Revisal, sec. 394, subsec. 2.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Peebles, J., at April Term, 1912, of BobesoN.\nCivil action to recover damages to plaintiff\u2019s land., caused by ( the building of a railroad embankment.\nDefendant duly pleaded three and five years statute of limitations. At the close of the testimony, on adverse intimation from the court, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit and appealed.\nMcNeill .& McNeill and Britt & Britt for plaintiff.\nMcLean, Parser & McLean cmd McIntyre, Lawrence & Proctor for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 638
}