{
  "id": 8625876,
  "name": "JOHN S. LITTLE v. MARTIN FURNITURE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little v. Martin Furniture Co.",
  "decision_date": "1931-05-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "731",
  "last_page": "732",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "200 N.C. 731"
    }
  ],
  "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": "190 N. C., 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595691
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 S. E., 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 S. E., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253396
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 A. L. R., 947",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617483
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S. E., 407",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627538
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 S. E., 467",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S. E., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654620
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/151/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S. E., 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608053
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 S. E., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613000
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0074-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.949015130763297e-08,
      "percentile": 0.462664039486472
    },
    "sha256": "0a711a126fe56df00c20807c9a7ce5d5d66c716b03278e55751f673ad3a92986",
    "simhash": "1:b31bf96bdc952df5",
    "word_count": 714
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN S. LITTLE v. MARTIN FURNITURE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s cause of action is supported by the decisions in Nance v. Phosphate Co., ante, 702; Masten v. Texas Co., 194 N. C., 540, 140 S. E., 89; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., 182 N. C., 489, 109 S. E., 376.\nThe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, which, in effect, is but a belated motion for judgment on the pleadings, was properly overruled on authority of Iron Works v. Beaman, 199 N. C., 537; Jernigan v. Neighbors, 195 N. C., 231, 141 S. E., 586; Shives v. Cotton Mills, 151 N. C., 290, 66 S. E., 141.\nThe action of the court in refusing defendant\u2019s request to limit plaintiff\u2019s recovery to nominal damages accords with what was said in Finger v. Spinning Co., 190 N. C., 74, 128 S. E., 467; Cook v. Mebane, 191 N. C., 1, 131 S. E., 407; Rhyne v. Mfg. Co., supra.\nThe fact that the stream in question may have been polluted from other sources, as well as from the defendant\u2019s septic tank, neither defeats the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action nor denies him the right to have the jury assess such damages as proximately flowed from the defendant\u2019s wrong. Moses v. Morganton, 192 N. C., 102, 133 S. E., 421; 26 R. C. L., 764; Note, 9 A. L. R., 947. \u201cTo show that other causes concurred in producing or contributing to the result complained of is no defense to an action for negligence.\u201d Harton v. Tel. Co., 141 N. C., 455, 54 S. E., 299. The defendant\u2019s negligence, in order to render him liable, must be the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes, but it need not be the sole proximate cause, of the plaintiff\u2019s injury. White v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 536, 109 S. E., 564.\nThe record discloses no exceptive assignment of error which can be sustained, and, as the case involves only settled principles of law so far as the present record is concerned, the verdict arid judgment will be upheld, without further elaboration of the exceptions.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appearing for plaintiff.",
      "E. B. Cline for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN S. LITTLE v. MARTIN FURNITURE COMPANY.\n(Filed 6 May, 1931.)\n1. Waters and Water Courses C c \u2014 An action will lie for damages caused by pollution of stream.\nWhere the defendant\u2019s septic tank overflows and pollutes a stream the plaintiff may recover damages proximately caused thereby.\n2. Judgments F d \u2014 Motion for judgment non obstante veredicto will not be granted where the pleadings support the verdict.\nA motion for judgment non obstante veredicto is, in effect, a belated motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the defendant\u2019s motion was properly overruled upon the authority of Iron \"Works v. Beaman, j.99 N. C., 537, and cases cited.\n3. Damages F c \u2014 Refusal of request to limit recovery to nominal damages held proper in this case.\nIn this action to recover damages caused by the pollution of a stream by the defendant the action of the trial court in refusing defendant\u2019s request to limit the recovery to nominal damages is held in accord with the decision in Finger v. Spinning Oo., 190 N. C., 74, and eases cited.\n4. Waters and Water Courses C c \u2014 Defendant is liable for damages caused by his pollution of stream regardless of pollution by others.\nWhere the defendant\u2019s septic tank has overflowed and polluted a stream, proximately causing damage to the plaintiff\u2019s land, the defendant is liable therefor, although the stream may have been polluted from other sources also, and the plaintiff is entitled to have the jury assess such damages as proximately flowed from the defendant\u2019s wrong.\nAppeal by defendant from Sha\u00ediv, J., at September Term, 1930,-of Catawba.\nCivil action for damages, tried upon the following issues:\n\u201c1. Was tbe plaintiff damaged-by reason of the alleged outflow from the defendant\u2019s septic tank, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n2. Is the plaintiff\u2019s cause of action barred by the statute of limitation, as alleged by the defendant? Answer: Yes, only as to any cause of action accruing to plaintiff prior to 4 August, 1924. (By consent.)\n3. What damage, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ? Answer: $500.\u201d\nJudgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nNo counsel appearing for plaintiff.\nE. B. Cline for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0731-01",
  "first_page_order": 799,
  "last_page_order": 800
}