{
  "id": 8628448,
  "name": "H. S. JONES et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. City of High Point",
  "decision_date": "1932-05-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "721",
  "last_page": "723",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 721"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 N. C., 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 12",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0012-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 5924,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.3287347452541276e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33567227278501566
    },
    "sha256": "acc6cd5a16c0ea8e54ec224adc716252bf908485607b7509cd139781678459e4",
    "simhash": "1:b8221e6fbc927780",
    "word_count": 991
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. S. JONES et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\n\"We have scrutinized the defendant\u2019s exceptions and find that a minute review of them would result merely in a restatement of familiar principles. It is hardly necessary to do- more than advert to some of the exceptions entered of record, but none has been overlooked.\nH. S. Jones, one of the plaintiffs, was asked on the'direct examination whether the premises in question had been infested with flies and mosquitoes subsequently to the construction of the plant. The defendant\u2019s objection was sustained. Thereafter the interrogatory was propounded to several other witnesses and in each instance the court made the same ruling. The defendant excepted to the frequent repetition of the question, but as the answer was recorded \u201cnot in the hearing of the jury\u201d we are unable to see how the defense could have been prejudiced. These exceptions are therefore overruled.\nThe court excluded evidence tending to show the reasonable market value of the land without the plant and the defendant excepted on the ground that the answer would have shown that the witness based his estimate of the decreased value of the land solely on the fact that the plant had been built at its present site. We do not agree with the defendant in its interpretation of the proposed evidence. The gravamen of the complaint is the partial taking of the plaintiffs\u2019 property by the creation of a nuisance, and the jury was specially instructed that the defendant had the right to erect the plant and install the machinery. Dayton v. Asheville, 185 N. C., 12; Sandlin v. Wilmington, 185 N. C., 257. The mere circumstance that the witness was not permitted to express an opinion as to the value of the land under conditions which did not exist is not an adequate reason for disturbing tbe -judgment. Tbe other exceptions to tbe evidence, we think, are without substantial merit and require no discussion.\nTbe court gave tbe substance of tbe prayer for instruction which is tbe subject of tbe twenty-third exception; and tbe objection that tbe jury was permitted to attribute tbe decreased market value of tbe property to tbe erection, maintenance, and operation of tbe plant must be taken in connection with tbe explanatory instruction that tbe specific question was whether tbe premises were substantially affected by odors emanating from tbe plant in its operation. Tbe charge on this point, we think, is not subject to tbe criticism that it is impossible to say upon what part of tbe charge tbe verdict was based. Tbe judge, told tbe jury in words that could not have been misunderstood that tbe defendant bad tbe right to operate tbe plant as a governmental function and more than once directed attention to tbe immediate question whether odors emanating from tbe plant substantially decreased tbe market value of tbe land. We are unable to discover any sufficient reason for bolding that upon return of tbe jury to tbe box tbe court\u2019s definition of a nuisance was detrimental to tbe defense. For these reasons exceptions 27-30 must be overruled. Tbe others are formal.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walser & Casey and Frazier <& Frazier for plaintiffs.",
      "Grover II. Jones and Sapp & Sapp for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. S. JONES et al. v. CITY OF HIGH POINT.\n(Filed 18 May, 1932.)\n1. Appeal and Error J e \u2014 Repeated asking of incompetent question held not prejudicial where answer was excluded and not made in hearing- of jury.\nWhere witnesses have been repeatedly asked an incompetent question by counsel, but their answers have been excluded and it appears that the answers were not made in the hearing of the jury, an exception to the frequent repetition of the question will be overruled on appeal, it appearing that the appellant had not been prejudiced thereby.\n2. Municipal Corporations E f \u2014 Exclusion of testimony of value of plaintiff\u2019s land without sewerage plant held not reversible error.\nIn an action against a city for damages caused the plaintiff\u2019s land by its sewage disposal plant, exclusion of evidence as to the value of the plaintiff\u2019s land without the plant will not be held for error, the proposed testimony being to the value of the land under conditions which did not exist, and the jury being specially instructed that the defendant had a right to erect and operate the plant at the location chosen.\n3. Same \u2014 Instruction in this case clearly charged that plaintiff, could recover only damages to land caused by odors from sewerage plant.\nIn an action against a city to recover damages caused by its sewage disposal plant an instruction that the jury might take into consideration the decreased market value of the plaintiff\u2019s land which was caused by the erection, maintenance and operation of the plant will be taken in connection with the explanatory instructions that the specific question-was whether the plaintiff\u2019s land had been damaged by reason of odors emanating from the plant, and that the defendant had a right to erect and operate the plant at that site'as a governmental function, and the charge will not be held for error and is not subject to the criticism that it is impossible to say upon what part of the charge the verdict was based.\nAppeal by defendant from Warlick, J., at November Term, 1931, of Guileobd.\nNo error.\nThe plaintiffs brought suit to recover damages for injury to their property by the defendant\u2019s operation of a sewage disposal plant.\nThe following verdict was returned by the jury:\n1. Are the plaintiffs the owners of the lands described in the complaint, as alleged in the complaint and the amendments thereto? Answer: Yes \u2014 by consent.\n2. Have the plaintiffs\u2019 lands,, as described in the complaint, been damaged by the installation and maintenance of the defendant\u2019s sewage disposal plant, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.\n3. If so, what permanent damages, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled to recover? Answer: $3,500.\nJudgment for the plaintiffs and appeal by the defendant upon assigned error.\nWalser & Casey and Frazier <& Frazier for plaintiffs.\nGrover II. Jones and Sapp & Sapp for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0721-01",
  "first_page_order": 787,
  "last_page_order": 789
}