{
  "id": 8607754,
  "name": "L. J. HARDISON v. NATIONAL HANDLE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hardison v. National Handle Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "352",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 351"
    }
  ],
  "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": "46 N. C., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682329
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/46/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 N. C., 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/180/0069-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2914,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29164634694918506
    },
    "sha256": "bbbee6102fdcc5291c7b9faf54e3fa7b6c1e2aefa748e7a18fa4b467189fe5c0",
    "simhash": "1:81e3d8df522c0609",
    "word_count": 494
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "L. J. HARDISON v. NATIONAL HANDLE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stact, C. J.\nIn the brief of counsel for plaintiff it is stated: \u201cWe are told that the lotus flower grows only in two rivers, the Nile and the Roanoke. The fishing machine, the subject-matter of this action, .so far as I know, is not used anywhere except in the Roanoke River.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s chief exception is the one addressed to the refusal of the trial court to grant its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, urged principally upon the ground that no liability attaches for injury done plaintiff\u2019s fishing machine by the defendant\u2019s raft of logs because the right of navigation is superior to the right of fishing in a navigable stream.\nThe latest expression on the subject is to be found in Spruill v. Mfg. Co., 180 N. C., 69, where Brown, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: \u201cAlthough the right of navigation in navigable waters is ordinarily paramount to the right of fishing therein, where the rights conflict, yet where both can be freely and fairly enjoyed, the right of navigation has no right to trespass upon and injure the right of fishing, and in such cases the owners of a vessel will be liable for damages caused to fishermen by the negligent navigation of their vessel, although they do not act maliciously or wantonly.\u201d\nThis is not at variance with the rule first stated in Lewis v. Keeling, 46 N. C., 299, and followed in a number of later decisions, to the effect that the right of navigation is superior to the right of fishing in the waters of a navigable stream. It-was said in that case: \u201cThere must be no wantonness or malice, no unnecessary damage, but a bona fide exercise of the paramount right of navigation.\u201d\nThe instant case was tried upon the principle announced in the Spruill and Lewis cases, and we find no cause to disturb the verdict.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stact, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. B. Dunning for plaintiff.",
      "Zeb Vasnee Norman for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "L. J. HARDISON v. NATIONAL HANDLE COMPANY.\n(Filed 12 October, 1927.)\nNavigable Waters-: \u2014 Logs and Logging \u2014 Fishing\u2014Negligence\u2014Damages.\nWhile the rights of navigation are ordinarily paramount in a navigable stream to those of fishing therein, they should be freely and fairly enjoyed together except in case of conflict; and where in floating logs down a stream the negligence of the defendant has unnecessarily caused damages to the xflaintiff\u2019s fishing machine, the former is held liable therefor.\nAppeal by defendant from Nunn, J., at January Term, 1927, of WASHINGTON.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged negligent injury to one of plaintiffs fishing machines'.\nUpon denial of liability, and issues joined, the jury found that the defendant, while floating a raft of logs down the Koanoke River, a navigable stream, unnecessarily and negligently injured one of plaintiff\u2019s fishing machines, stationed in said river, and assessed the damages at $37.00.\nFrom a judgment on the verdict in favor of plaintiff the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nA. B. Dunning for plaintiff.\nZeb Vasnee Norman for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 420
}