{
  "id": 8693295,
  "name": "OTHO V. POOL v. J. B. TREXLER and wife",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pool v. Trexler",
  "decision_date": "1877-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "298",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 N.C. 297"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 N. C. 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0714-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2837,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.453,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3707377575094553e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7953247467323384
    },
    "sha256": "8f5978701c94206a98454ea2634335436100f4ccd016a38b01686802015da0ed",
    "simhash": "1:e6341835be4f6004",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:57.000998+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "OTHO V. POOL v. J. B. TREXLER and wife."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pearson, C. J.\nEvery citizen holds his land subservient' to such \u201cpolice regulations\u201d as the General Assembly may in its wisdom enact in order to promote the general welfare. Brown v. Keener, 74 N. C. 714.\nI take this proposition to be settled and will not attempt to make \u201ca rehash\u201d of the cases set out by Cooley, ch. 16,. \u201cConstitutional Limitations.\u201d\nIf the General Assembly has power to make regulations for draining a swamp containing 10,000 acres it has the same power in regard to a swamp containing 1,000 acres. So of 100 acres, so of 1 acre.\nThere is no distinction in the principle; the only differ\u2022ence is in regard to the degree.\nWe declare our opinion to be that the police power of the General Assembly authorized it to pass the Act under which this action is brought, to-wit; the Act entitled \u201cDraining wet lands.\u201d Bat. Rev. ch. 39.\nIt is said the General Assembly has no power to take one acre of the land of A and give it to B, on the ground that B is the better farmer of the two and will make the one acre produce more. That proposition is granted except when \u201cthe power of eminent domain\u201d is exerted for public purposes ; as when land is taken for a railroad. These two powers \u201ceminent domain\u201d and \u201cpolice regulations\u201d are distinct .and yet they are frequently confounded. By the one, the property of A is given to B. By the other, the property of A is left in him, but is made subservient to the general welfare. \u201cCart ways,\u201d Bat. Rev. ch. 104, \u00a7 38, furnishes an .analogy. Under the power to make \u201cpolice regulations\u201d the land of A is made subservient to the land of B for the purposes of a road. After some contestation the question of the power of the General Assembly was yielded. So in our \u25a0case the power of the General Assembly to make the land of A \u25a0\u2022subservient to the land of B for the purpose of drainage must also be yielded upon the authorities and upon the reason of the Bring.\nError.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed, and procedendo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pearson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. J. E. Kerr, for plaintiff.",
      ", Mr. J. M. MeCorkle, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OTHO V. POOL v. J. B. TREXLER and wife.\nBraining Wet Lands \u2014 Constitutionality of Aet.\nThe Act concerning \u201cDraining wet lands\u201d (Battle\u2019s Revisal, Ch. 39) is constitutional.\n(Bynum, J. Dissenting.)\n{Brown v. Keener, 74 N. 0. 714, cited and approved )\nThis was a PROCEEDING under the Act concerning \u201cDraining Wet Lands\u201d (Bat. Rev. ch. 39.) heard at Pali Term,. 1876, of Rowan Superior Court, before Cloud, J.\nThe action was instituted before the County Commissioners and brought by appeal to the Superior Court.\nThe defendant insisted that said Aet authorizing the assessment, &c. was unconstitutional, in that; private property was taken for private uses without compensation to the owner thereof.\nHis Honor sustained the position taken by defendant and gave judgment accordingly. Appeal by plaintiff.\nMr. J. E. Kerr, for plaintiff.\n, Mr. J. M. MeCorkle, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 309,
  "last_page_order": 310
}