Case ID: nc_223/html/0855-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Pee Oukiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

S. E. MESSNER v. F. S. ROYSTER GUANO COMPANY.
    (Filed 19 May, 1943.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from Hamilton, Special Judge, at November Extra Term, 1942, of MecKLENBueg. No error.
    This was an action to recover damages for negligently discharging water charged with chemicals on plaintiff’s land. On issues submitted the jury answered the first issue in favor of defendant, as follows: “1. Did the defendant negligently operate its plant so as to discharge harmful chemical substances upon property of the plaintiff through artificial drains, and thereby damage plaintiff’s property during the years 1940 and 1941, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.” From judgment on the verdict, plaintiff appealed.
    
      W. T. Shore for plaintiff.
    
    
      Robinson & J ones for defendant.
    
   Pee Oukiam.

Plaintiff’s action was bottomed on negligence. Tbe allegation in tbe complaint was that on account of tbe negligent operation of defendant’s plant and of tbe artificial drains for tbe discharge of water, chemical substances giving off offensive odors were caused to flow on plaintiff’s land, lessening its value. Tbe first issue, submitted without objection, and answered in tbe negative, was determinative of tbe cause of action alleged. No issue was tendered as to nuisance. Trespass was not alleged. Plaintiff brought forward in bis assignments of error several exceptions to tbe judge’s charge. From an examination of tbe record we are left with tbe impression that none of tbe exceptions are sufficient to warrant a new trial. On tbe facts, tbe jury has decided against the plaintiff, and tbe result will not be disturbed.

No error.