{
  "id": 8656250,
  "name": "W. P. INGRAM and Wife v. YADKIN RIVER POWER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ingram v. Yadkin River Power Co.",
  "decision_date": "1921-06-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "411",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 N.C. 411"
    }
  ],
  "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": "176 N. C., 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 Ind., 534",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1590435
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/143/0534-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 U. S., 258",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3382729
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/96/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "165 N. C., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659422
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/165/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N. C., 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4115,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.394581112644019
    },
    "sha256": "6b639a7f1862485da3c23edde58580b3fb814260ea83d28e2dfb16110c9b856b",
    "simhash": "1:a9f2bd020800e7c3",
    "word_count": 730
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:48.388810+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. P. INGRAM and Wife v. YADKIN RIVER POWER COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThere being an apparent irregularity in settling the ease on appeal, on motion of plaintiffs the record was remanded to the judge; with leave to amend the statement of the case, in an opinion by Stacy, J., at this term. The case now comes up before us on the return to the certiorari.\nThe plaintiff in his brief relies upon the assignments of error 5 and 6. No. 5 is that the court refused to submit the issue as tendered by the plaintiff, \u201cWas the land of plaintiffs injured by the maintenance of the dam and flash dam of the defendant as alleged in the complaint?\u201d but divided it, submitting the question of injury by the concrete dam and flash dam under separate issues. No. 6, the other assignment of error relied on, is that the court charged the jury that there was no evidence that the lands of the plaintiff were injured by the erection and maintenance of the defendant\u2019s \u201cconcrete dam,\u201d and instructed the jury to answer the issue \u201cNo.\u201d\nThe court makes return to the certiorari as follows: \u201cIn obedience to the suggestion of the Supreme Court for a more definite finding of fact touching the abandonment by the plaintiffs of claim for damages resulting from the erection and maintenance of the concrete dam, the court finds the following facts:\n\u201cThat after the plaintiff, W. P. Ingram, and his witness, A. E. Lyman, had testified that the back water from the concrete dam stopped at or near Coleman\u2019s Mill, a distance of one and one-half miles below plaintiff\u2019s premises, and plaintiff had further testified that no damage had been done to his crops or lands prior to the erection of the flash dam, the court inquired of counsel for plaintiffs if they contended that the plaintiff\u2019s premises had been injured by the erection and maintenance of the concrete dam, and counsel replied that they did not claim that the lands or crops of the plaintiffs had suffered any injury prior to the erection of the flash dam, the trial thereupon proceeded on the theory and with the understanding upon the part of the court that the plaintiffs did not make any contention that they had been damaged by the erection and maintenance of the concrete dam, but that their damages, if any they had sustained, resulted from the erection and maintenance of the flash dam.\u201d\n\u201cTbe appellant cannot be allowed in tbis Court to maintain a position inconsistent witb or directly antagonizing tbe basic facts of bis own suit or question orders wbicb tbe Court bas made in furtherance of bis own application,\u201d or admissions on tbe trial below. Lipsitz v. Smith, 178 N. C., 100, quoting Brown v. Chemical Co., 165 N. C., 421; R. R. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S., 258; Bank v. Dovetail, 143 Ind., 534. To same purport, King v. R. R., 176 N. C., 306.\nTbe plaintiffs, baying abandoned on tbe trial any claim for damages arising from tbe erection of tbe concrete dam, cannot be beard to assert on appeal that it was error in tbe court to instruct tbe jury to that effect.\nOn tbe above finding of fact we must adjudge tbat there bas been\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. B. Jones and Stack, Parker & Orwig for plaintiffs.",
      "Bobinson, Caudle & Pruett, Thomas & Phillips, F. W. Bynum, Jas. PL. Pou, and W. L. Currie for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. P. INGRAM and Wife v. YADKIN RIVER POWER COMPANY.\n(Filed 3 June, 1921.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Trials \u2014 Damages \u2014 Instructions \u2014 Agreement of Counsel.\nWhere the plaintiff in his. action seeks to recover damages of the defendant for injury to his land in ponding water upon it by the erection of a concrete and of a flash dam, and it appears to the Supreme Court, upon a return to a writ of certiorari ordered on a former hearing, that the plaintiff abandoned oh the trial any claim for damages from the erection of the concrete dam, no error will be found in an instruction to the jury to that effect.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from McMroy, Jat September Term, 1920, O\u00cd RICHMOND.\nThis was an action to recover damages for ponding water against and sobbing lands of the plaintiffs by reason of the defendant\u2019s concrete dam and. flash dam at Blewett\u2019s Falls on the Pee Dee River. Yerdict and judgment for defendant. Appeal by plaintiffs.\nW. B. Jones and Stack, Parker & Orwig for plaintiffs.\nBobinson, Caudle & Pruett, Thomas & Phillips, F. W. Bynum, Jas. PL. Pou, and W. L. Currie for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0411-01",
  "first_page_order": 463,
  "last_page_order": 465
}