{
  "id": 11277127,
  "name": "JOHN P. LITTLE v. PRESLEY STANBACK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Little v. Stanback",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "287",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 285"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4491,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.619716624446295e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8212312764180459
    },
    "sha256": "1f837a90bd8d45edbdb9836dc5b7775ed7c5633447b6824cab9537b2afe1db9c",
    "simhash": "1:31bad4e0ca9914e7",
    "word_count": 807
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN P. LITTLE v. PRESLEY STANBACK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nThe statute provides that \u201c any person conceiving himself injured by the erection of any grist mill, or mill for other useful purposes, may apply by petition to the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions for the county in which the land is situate, setting forth in what respects he is injured by the erection of the mill, &c.\u201d Rev. Code, ch. 71, s. 8.\nUnder this statute any one whose land is injured by the erection of such a mill, may recover damages for the injury to the land, and also for incidental injuries, \u2014 as, to the health of his family, to his machinery, &c.\nThe parties went to trial before the jury upon the single issue, \u201c Is the plaintiff damaged by the erection of the mill of the defendant; and, if so, what is the extent of the damage?\u201d -The issue is not as specific in terms, as it might have been, but no other was asked for, and no objection made by either party.\n\u201c The defendant asked his Honor to charge the jury, that, if there was water backed by the defendant\u2019s dam on the plaintiff\u2019s wheel, and it produced no injury to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to no damages, and their verdict should be for the defendant.\u201d\nHis Honor declined to give the instructions, but charged the jury, that, \u201c if. they were satisfied that the water was ponded back by the defendant\u2019s dam on the plaintiff\u2019s wheel, but produced no substantial injury, the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages.\u201d\nGiving, to the exception, and to his Honor\u2019s charge, & plain \u00a1and just interpretation, we think that the point intended to be presented was \u201c Is the mere fact of ponding back the water \u25a0upon the plaintiff\u2019s premises sufficient to entitle him to nominal damages ?\u201d His Honor thought it was, and we are of the .same opinion. It is like a trespass on land, when the allegation is, that the defendant broke the plaintiff\u2019s close, and trod down his grass; it is clear that the mere entry upon the land, \u00a1although there be not so much perceptible injury as the treading down a single sprig of grass, is a trespass, and entitles the \u25a0plaintiff to nominal damages.\nThere were many points taken in the argument at this bar, that were not taken below, and our province is only to correct the errors in the trial below. But we do not see that the -objections could have availed the defendant, if they had been \u25a0taken in apt time.\nIt was objected,\n1. That it is not alleged in the petition, that the defendant\u2019s mill is a public mill, or a grist mill grinding for toll. That is true: but it is alleged that it is a \u201c grist mill;\u201d and that is \u25a0within the words of the statute.\n2. That it did not appear that any portion of the plaintiff\u2019s land was overflowed, but only that the wheels of his mill were .flooded, by the ponding of the water.\nSupposing that this be true, in the sense that the water was mot thrown out of the banks of the stream, yet the raising the water in the stream, necessarily overflowed the banks, to the extent that it was raised; and these incidental injuries were properly considered. So that we need not consider the \u25a0question, whether the mill and machinery, being a part of the realty, answers the description of land.\nPer Curiam. There is no error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Person and Fowle & 'Badger, for the appellants.",
      "Strange and B. H. Battle, Jr., contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN P. LITTLE v. PRESLEY STANBACK.\nInstructions to a jury, that if a plaintiff sustains no injury from the pond-ing of water upon Ms mill wheel, still he is entitled to nominal damages,, are correct.\nWhere a petition under the statute, [Rev. Code, ch. 71, s. 8] for damages-caused by the erection of a mill upon the stream below, described it as a \u201c grist mill;\u201d without calling it a public mill, or a grist mill grinding for tollr hold, to be sufficient.\nThe mere raising of a stream within its banks, although it is not thrown out of them, is sufficient to support an action for injury to land through which it runs.\nPETITION, to recover damages caused by the erection of a mill, tried before Buxton, J., at Fall Term 1868 of the Superior Court of Anson.\nUpon the trial, the defendant\u2019s counsel asked] the Court to charge the jury, thatif the water backed, by the dam below, upon the wheels of theplaintiff\u2019s mills produced no injury to the plaintiff, the latter was entitled to no damage. The Court declined .so to charge, and instructed the jury that in such case the plaintiff would be entitled to nominal damages.\nYerdict for the plaintiff; Rule for a new trial; Rule discharged; Judgment, and Appeal.\nPerson and Fowle & 'Badger, for the appellants.\nStrange and B. H. Battle, Jr., contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 301,
  "last_page_order": 303
}