{
  "id": 8627234,
  "name": "B. L. NEWTON and Wife, MARJORIE NEWTON, Petitioners, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newton v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission",
  "decision_date": "1954-01-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "433",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "239 N.C. 433"
    }
  ],
  "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": "22 A.L.R. 1124",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 11",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N.C. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N.C. 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654725
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0648-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 S.E. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N.C. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655054
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S.E. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598297
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E. 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N.C. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630798
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S.E. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N.C. 723",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0723-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S.E. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.C. 517",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630533
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0517-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.C. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628423
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 886",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621410
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0271-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 5670,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20727675628965242
    },
    "sha256": "cc14ae3b371ffceb708f8218a38eb375bd7feb71e8aa8c3b561c6c661c8c6574",
    "simhash": "1:b8e5cb0118333653",
    "word_count": 924
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:12.847603+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "B. L. NEWTON and Wife, MARJORIE NEWTON, Petitioners, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ervin, J.\nWhen a landowner initiates a special proceeding to recover compensation from the State Highway and Public Works Commission under the provisions of the statute codified as Gr.S. 136-19, his petition must allege, among other things, facts showing that his land has been taken or damaged for public use without just compensation by the State Highway and Public Works Commission. 30 C.J.S., Eminent Domain, Section 422. The petition in the instant proceeding falls short of this requirement. To be sure, it alleges that the cracks in the lot \u201care caused by a displacement of the embankment forming the southern side\u201d of the cut through which the by-passing highway runs; that \u201cthe displacement of the embankment is the direct and proximate result of the construction\u201d of the by-passing highway by the respondent; and that the damage to the lot, which is \u201ccaused solely by the construction of the by-pass,\u201d constitutes a taking of tbe property of the petitioners for public highway use. These allegations state mere legal conclusions. They are not admitted by the demurrer and add nothing to the petition, which does not contain any facts showing how the embankment has been displaced, or how the construction of the by-passing highway effected its displacement. Anderson v. Atkinson, 234 N.C. 271, 66 S.E. 2d 886; Tea Co. v. Hood, Comr., 205 N.C. 313, 171 S.E. 344; Ballinger v. Thomas, 195 N.C. 517, 142 S.E. 761; Lane v. Graham County, 194 N.C. 723, 140 S.E. 712; Brick Co. v. Gentry, 191 N.C. 636, 132 S.E. 800; Whitehead v. Telephone Co., 190 N.C. 197, 129 S.E. 602; Horney v. Mills, 189 N.C. 724, 128 S.E. 324; Manning v. R. R., 188 N.C. 648, 125 S.E. 555; Bank v. Bank, 183 N.C. 463, 112 S.E. 11, 22 A.L.R. 1124.\nThe judgment overruling the demurrer is\nEeversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ervin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Victor 8. Bryant, ,Tr., for the petitioners, appellees.",
      "R. Brookes Peters, E. W. Hooper, and Ilofler & Mount for the responds eni, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "B. L. NEWTON and Wife, MARJORIE NEWTON, Petitioners, v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION, Respondent.\n(Filed 29 January, 1954.)\n1. Eminent Domain \u00a7 14\u2014\nA petition in a special proceeding by a landowner to recover compensation for tbe taking of bis land for highway purposes under G.S. 136-19, must allege, among other things, facts showing that his land has been taken or damaged for highway purposes without just compensation.\na. Same \u2014 Petition held demurrable for failure to allege facts showing how land was taken or damaged for highway purposes.\nIn a special proceeding under G.S. 136-19, allegations in the landowners\u2019 petition to the effect that the State Highway and Public Works Commission constructed a by-passing highway through a deep cut bordering petitioners\u2019 lot, that large cracks thereafter appeared in the lot, splitting the foundations of the petitioners\u2019 residence, and that the displacement of the embankment and damage to petitioners\u2019 property was caused by the construction of the by-pass, are held, insufficient to withstand demurrer, since they state mere legal conclusions without allegation of facts showing how the embankment was displaced or the construction of -the by-passing highway effected its displacement.\n3. Pleadings \u00a7 15\u2014\nA demurrer does not admit conclusions of law of the pleader.\nAppeal by respondent from Carr, J., at October Term, 1953, of Dueham.\nSpecial proceeding by owners to recover compensation for land supposedly taken or damaged for public bigbway use beard upon a demurrer to tbe petition.\nTbe petition alleges these things:\nOn 1 September, 1950, the petitioners E. L. Newton and Marjorie Newton bought a lot containing their present residence in the City of Durham, which they still own. During the period beginning on 31 August, 1949, and ending on 9 March, 1951, the respondent State Highway and Public Works Commission constructed a by-passing highway through the area just north of the lot, which lies entirely outside the highway right of way. The by-passing highway runs through a deep cut, its right of way borders upon the northern boundary line of the lot, and the residence stands eight feet from the embankment which forms the southern side of the cut. On 1 March, 1952, large cracks appeared in the lot. These cracks have split the foundation of the residence, and threaten the total destruction of the building. The cracks \u201care caused by a displacement of the embankment forming the southern side\u201d of the cut. The petitioners informed the respondent with promptitude of the appearance of the cracks, and requested it to repair the embankment. The respondent refused to comply with the request. \u201cThe displacement of the embankment is the direct and proximate result of the construction\u201d by the respondent of the by-passing highway. The damage to the lot, which is \u201ccaused solely by the construction of the by-pass,\u201d constitutes a taking of the property of the petitioners for public highway use, and entitles them to just compensation from the respondent.\nThe petition prays that the court appoint commissioners \u201cto appraise the . . . damages resulting to the . . . land by the construction\u201d by respondent of the by-passing highway, and enter the decrees necessary to secure to petitioners just compensation \u201cfor the injury ... of their property by the work\u201d of the respondent.\nThe respondent demurred to the petition in writing on this ground: The petition does not state facts sufficient to show that the land of the petitioners has been taken or damaged for public use. Judge Carr heard the proceeding on an appeal from the clerk, and entered a judgment overruling the demurrer. The respondent excepted and appealed, assigning Judge Carr\u2019s judgment as error.\nVictor 8. Bryant, ,Tr., for the petitioners, appellees.\nR. Brookes Peters, E. W. Hooper, and Ilofler & Mount for the responds eni, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0433-01",
  "first_page_order": 477,
  "last_page_order": 479
}