{
  "id": 11270160,
  "name": "C. L. and W. F. HINTON v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hinton v. Lake Drummond Canal Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-09-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "484",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 N.C. 484"
    }
  ],
  "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": "141 N. C., 854",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0432-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 7241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.752239802397746
    },
    "sha256": "4061e3d36900261d7ea0de4a89bd7ec31edfc3d6e1eb5c3c424c504e5b838a24",
    "simhash": "1:de2077ed578c67fe",
    "word_count": 1229
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:48.430184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Walker and Hoke, JJ., dissent."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "C. L. and W. F. HINTON v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClaRK, C. J.\nThis is an action to compel the defendant to maintain a drawbridge across \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut.\u201d This was refused, and the plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages for the discontinuance of the bridge, and might amend their complaint to so allege, and might submit an issue as to the amount, and the defendant appealed.\nBefore \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d was dug, boats went through what was known as the Moccasin Tract,-which is a part of Pasquotank Eiver. The canal company, the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, which was the predecessor of the defendant in title, thereupon cut \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d from the mouth of their canal to a point on the Pasquotank Biver, which avoided going through the Moccasin Tract part of that river, thus making the route 4 miles shorter.\nIt was in evidence that some thirty years ago the superintendent of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company disclaimed on the part of his company the ownership of \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d and permitted the Government to take it over, which was done. The Government widened and deepened it as a part of Pasquotank Eiver presumably, spending over $150,000 in doing so, and permitted its free use by the public.\nThe defendant contends that when it purchased the property of the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, 30 July, 1892, it 'did not purchase \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut.\u201d The defendant has never set up any claim to \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut,\u201d has never collected any toll for its use nor spent any money on its repair nor maintained it in any way.\nThere was a bridge across \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d when the defendant purchased the Dismal Swamp Canal. The defendant has maintained this bridge and a phone station to notify boats and rafts passing through the \u201ccut.\u201d After the United States Government had purchased the Albemarle and Chesapeake Canal, which was a competitor of this canal, the defendant in reducing expenses did away with the phone station and ceased to maintain this bridge. The plaintiffs then instituted this suit to- compel the defendant to maintain the bridge for the benefit of their toll road.\nIt was competent for the defendant\u2019s witness to testify that the defendant had never claimed any right, title, or interest in \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d nor any part thereof, and that the Government had appropriated large sums for its maintenance and permitted its free use by the public.\nIt was also competent for the witness to testify that when the defendant purchased the Dismal Swamp Canal property that this bridge was over Turner\u2019s Cut, and that the defendant continued to maintain the bridge merely as a matter of convenience and without assuming any obligation.\nTbe records of tbe United States Government were duly certified as required by Pell\u2019s Bev., sec. 1617; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432; S. v. R. R., 141 N. C., 854. These excerpts from tbe records of tbe War Department show that tbe United States Government bad taken over, as part of tbe public waters of tbe United States, tbe section called \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d; tbat it was appropriating large sums of money for its maintenance, and tbat tbe defendant bad not managed or controlled tbis cut nor claimed to own it.\nWe find no error in tbe refusal of tbe mandatory injunction to compel tbe defendant to keep up and maintain tbe bridge.\nTbe defendant objected to tbe introduction of tbe deed from Newton and Ellis, trustees, to tbe Dismal Swamp Canal Company, of 15 January, 1880, on tbe ground tbat tbe probate was not sufficient, and therefore tbat it was not properly registered.\nIt is unnecessary to consider tbis proposition, because if tbe probate of tbis deed was insufficient'to pass tbe title, tbe deed of tbe said company to Tbom and Bain, 1 July, 1882, was properly probated and recorded, and from them there is a complete title by mesne conveyances to tbe defendant.\nTbe court having properly held tbat tbe plaintiff was not entitled to a mandamus to compel tbe defendant to maint\u00e1in a bridge across \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut,\u201d because it did not have title thereto, and tbat tbe United States is maintaining said cut as a part of tbe navigable waters of tbe State, it follows tbat tbe plaintiffs are not entitled to an issue as to tbe damages it has sustained by reason of tbe defendant not maintaining said bridge.\nWhile tbe Dismal Swamp Canal Company, predecessor in title of tbe defendant, cut tbe waterway known as \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut,\u201d it was not a part of tbe property which it held under its franchise, but was merely an adjunct or convenience which it operated. Tbe title to said \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d was not a part of tbe franchise and did not pass by tbe defendant\u2019s purchase. Tbe United States Government subsequently took it over and for thirty years has been expending money upon it as a part of tbe navigable waters of tbe State, and tbe defendant has not been charging toll or exercising control over it.\nThere is no obligation, express or implied, requiring the defendant to maintain the bridge, which it has done heretofore voluntarily and as a matter of convenience, and it was error to adjudge that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages and to authorize the amendment to the complaint to the end that an issue as to such damages should be submitted to the jury.\nIn plaintiffs\u2019 appeal, No error.\nIn defendant\u2019s appeal, . Reversed.\nWalker and Hoke, JJ., dissent.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClaRK, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ward & Thompson for plaintiffs.",
      "Aydlett & Simpson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. L. and W. F. HINTON v. LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY.\n(Filed 16 September, 1914.)\n1. Canals \u2014 Water and Water-courses \u2014 Bridges\u2014Maintenance\u2014Convenience \u2014 Title\u2014Damages\u2014Trials\u2014Evidence.\n\u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d was dug by the predecessor of the defendant from the mouth of its canal to a point on the Pasquotank River to avoid going through \u201cMoccasin Tract\u201d with boats, and thus saving some distance in their travel. When the defendant purchased the property of its predecessor, the Dismal Swamp Canal Company, there was a bridge over \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut,\u201d which it maintained and erected a phone station to notify boats and rafts going through the \u201ccut.\u201d In cutting down expenses, the defendant did away with the phone station and ceased to maintain the bridge. The plaintiffs seek to compel the defendant to maintain this bridge for the benefit of their toll road, and by amendment of the pleadings to recover damages for the defendant\u2019s failure to maintain it. Sold, it was competent for the defendant to prove that it had never acquired or claimed title to the lands through which \u201cTurner\u2019s Cut\u201d had been dug; that the United States Government had taken over and controlled the \u201ccut\u201d as a part of its public waterways, appropriating large sums of money for its maintenance; and that the defendant had previously maintained the -bridge only for its own convenience; and Further held, that upon the facts established, there was no liability upon the defendants.\n2. Deeds and Conveyances \u2014 Defective Probate \u2014 Title.\nIt is held in this case that the objection to the validity of probate of a deed under which the plaintiff claims title to the land in dispute is immaterial, the plaintiff having shown a connected chain of title through another deed, which was properly probated.\nWalker and Hoke, JJ., dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiffs and defendant from Ferguson, J., at March- Term, 1914, of Camden.\nWard & Thompson for plaintiffs.\nAydlett & Simpson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0484-01",
  "first_page_order": 526,
  "last_page_order": 530
}