{
  "id": 8560656,
  "name": "CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY v. CECIL C. BRIGGS and Wife, FRANCES C. BRIGGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Briggs",
  "decision_date": "1966-09-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "160",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 N.C. 158"
    }
  ],
  "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": "105 S.E. 2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611033
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0148-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 253",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569094
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 S.E. 2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614121,
        8614042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0291-02",
        "/nc/249/0291-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 4326,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3500990351143895e-07,
      "percentile": 0.633139036291305
    },
    "sha256": "e961bf19750d5a8e7e00782908d19e307c3a239173d8b041ca56906d7848ffae",
    "simhash": "1:92eb00a9252cbe61",
    "word_count": 696
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:58.333486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY v. CECIL C. BRIGGS and Wife, FRANCES C. BRIGGS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nRESPONDENTS\u2019 APPEAL.\nEach of respondents\u2019 assignments of error has received careful consideration. Conceding there may be technical error in certain of the court\u2019s rulings with reference to the admissibility of evidence, a careful reading of the evidence fails to show respondents were prejudiced thereby. Upon the entire record, we find no error of such nature as to justify a new trial.\nPETITIONER\u2019S APPEAL.\nOn June 8, 1962, petitioner paid into the office of the clerk of the superior court the sum of $6,975.00, the amount of damages assessed by the commissioners. Thereby petitioner acquired the right to \u201center, take possession of, and hold said lands, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, and until the final judgment rendered on said appeal.\u201d G.S. 40-19; Topping v. Board of Education, 249 N.C. 291, 106 S.E. 2d 502. In accordance with petitioner\u2019s said statutory right, the clerk entered an order \u201cthat the petitioner be and it is hereby placed and put into possession of the lands and premises described in the petition.\u201d For procedure in condemnation proceedings instituted by the State Highway Commission, see G.S. 136-103 et seq., and Highway Commission v. Industrial Center, 263 N.C. 230, 139 S.E. 2d 253.\nApplying the rule established in Winston-Salem v. Wells, 249 N.C. 148, 105 S.E. 2d 435, respondents were entitled to judgment for $3,500.00 and interest thereon from June 8, 1962, the date petitioner acquired the right to possession. The court was in error in allowing interest from April 2, 1962, the date petitioner instituted this proceeding. Hence, there should be subtracted from the principal of the judgment an amount equal to the interest on $3,500.00 from April 2, 1962, to June 8, 1962. It is ordered that the judgment be and is so modified; and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.\nOn respondents\u2019 appeal: No error.\nOn petitioner\u2019s appeal: Modified and affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Van Winkle, Walton, Buck & Wall and Herbert L. Hyde for 'petitioner.",
      "Williams, Williams & Morris for respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY v. CECIL C. BRIGGS and Wife, FRANCES C. BRIGGS.\n(Filed 21 September, 1966.)\nEminent Domain \u00a7 5\u2014\nRespondents, in an action to take land under eminent domain, are entitled to interest from the date the petitioner acquires the right to possession and not from the date the proceedings were instituted.\nAppeals by petitioner and by respondents from Falls, \u00ab/., April 1966 Session of BuNCOMbe.\nPetitioner, Carolina Power and Light Company, instituted this condemnation proceeding April 2, 1962, in connection with its construction, maintenance and operation of a new steam plant for the generation of electricity on Powell Creek in Limestone Township, Buncombe County, North Carolina, to acquire the fee simple title to a portion of the land owned by respondents, Cecil C. Briggs and wife, Frances C. Briggs. G.S. 62-187; G.S. 40-11 et seq. The portion condemned contains 1.901 acres. The remaining portion, on which the Briggs residence is located, contains 3.545 acres and abuts the Long Shoals Road.\nRespondents appealed from the clerk\u2019s order confirming the report of commissioners and demanded that the issue of damages be tried by a jury.\nAt trial in superior court, the issue submitted and the jury\u2019s answer are as follows: \u201cWhat amount of damages, if any, are the defendants entitled to recover from petitioner for the taking of the lands and right of way described in the Petition, including damages, if any, to the remaining lands of defendants? Answer: $3500.00.\u201d\nJudgment was entered divesting the title of respondents in the condemned portion of the property and vesting the fee simple title thereto in petitioner. The judgment provided for the payment by petitioner as compensation the total sum of $4,340.00, consisting of $3,500.00, the amount of the verdict, and of interest thereon at 6% per annum from April 2, 1962, to the date of judgment, to wit, $840.00. The judgment taxed petitioner with the costs of the proceeding.\nRespondents\u2019 appeal is based on asserted errors in rulings on evidence and portions of the charge. They seek a new trial.\nPetitioner\u2019s appeal is directed solely to that portion of the judgment allowing said interest item of $840.00. Petitioner contends the judgment should be modified by striking this provision therefrom.\nVan Winkle, Walton, Buck & Wall and Herbert L. Hyde for 'petitioner.\nWilliams, Williams & Morris for respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 198,
  "last_page_order": 200
}