Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-26
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DlGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
Exclusively for Virginian- Pllot.)
HocUTT V. ". & w. r. CO.

HoCUTT V. W. & w. r. CO.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
March a. 1899.
WHEN a RAILROAD COMPANY d.
VERIFIED A WATER COURSE BY
DIGGING a DITCH, IT is LIABLE
FOR INJURIES TO LAND CAUSED
BY THE OVERFLOW OF A CON
Meeting DITCH.
THE STATETE OF LIMITATIONS IN
SUCH CASE BEGINS TO RUN
FROM THE DATE OF THE IN
JURY. NOT FROM THE TIME OF
THE DIGGING OF THE DITCH.
This was an action brought to re-
cover damages arising from the food
Ing Of land. caused by the diversion OF
water through one OF the defendant S
bitches.
The plaintiffs alleged that the dcfen-
cant. in order to drain its roadbcd and
right OF way, had cut dcco bitches be-
side It's road, whereby ii diverted large
volumes of water from its natural
course and flow. and cm.Iied ii into n
small branch or fiat bottom known a.
HAITIAN Trcstle" or Jumping Run
1iranch;' that it has provided no suai-
Gent outlet for such accumulated and
diverted waters, thereby causing the
same 10 pond or back up and overflow
the plaintiffs lana. whereby they and
their interstate have been greatly dam
aged within the three years next pre-
ccding the action.
There was a judgement for plaintiff
ana defendant appealed The court
says:
II is unnecessary to separately con-
sider each exception. as they naturally
group themselves around two or three
essential principles. The charge itself
appears to be uneXccotionable. vt is
lull- clear and accurate. in which the
principles of law laid down arc cor
fcctly applied 10 the facts involved.
None or the statutes of limitations APP
pear To bar the action. II is contcndcd
by the defendant that the sole dam
aGc was done by the freshet OF 1895.
winch happened only n few months be-
fore the bringing of the action. 1t
makes no difference when the bitches
We're dug. provided they did not injure
the pla!ntifr. The defendant had a per
l"ct right 10 dig it's bitches or use it's
land as II saw fit without injury to an
other. Tho digging OF the bitches. or
the building of the road. or any other
act done = or 20 or 80 years before was
utterly immatcrjal to the present con-
tr0Versy. as in themselves they consti-
tuteG 10 cause Of action. While the
plaintiff might. under certain circum-
stances. have enjoincd the commission
al an act that threatened irrcparabIc.
injury. lie could not have maintained
an action for damages that he had not
sustained. and might never sustain II
J" We!l settled that the injury is tho
cause Of action. ana that no statutes of
Limitation can begin to run before the
cause Of action accrues.
Thc injury complained Of is tho Hood
al h,.n nj In itlf
unlawful act OF the defendant in diver
inE water from its natural course. and
concentrating ii al n point where there
WIS 10 sufficient natural or artificial
outlet. 1t is now well settled that
neither corporation nor an individual
Gu" dlN"fs water from its natural
course so as to damage another They
may increase and ACCELERATE bIif moi
uiteri There was certainly sufficient
evidence OF diversion to 90 10 the Jury.
and This of itself disposcs of several
on Inc exceptions. Had the natural
water shed remained intact when the
dam az Devils ditch broke. its water
Mould nave resumed its old channel in
prancn NO. ,, and would not have
reached the plaintiffs land. going far
10 inc northeast. But It's outlet into
branch No. was closed, and i; nat,,-
rally FOUND It's way into the railroa RI
ditch which had been cut through thn
m'''er Sieu- IL was thus diverted from
It's natural outlet to the east. and cav
ried back south to the head of Jumnjng
run. The same diversion was shown as
TO the water of branch No. 6. which
naturally flowed south into Jumping
run at its head at Rattan trestle The
erect of this diversion and concen-
1ration was to accumulate a large
amount of water at the head of .Jumn-
ing run: which it was unable to carry
th6rnfnra
upon Hocutts land. 1t is true that
Jumping run is a natural water course
and drain way, as contended by the do
1endant, but 1T is such only as to those
waters that naturally flow into il. Tn.
defendant contends that il should NOT
De held responsible for Porter's bitches.
This might be true were 1t not for the
Iact that IT'S own ditch received the
water from Porter's bitches. and dis
charged 1t upon the plaintiff thus be-
coming the oroximate cause Of the in
jury. Affirmed.