The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1902-09-30
Supreme Court Digest.
tReported BY Jos. L. SeaweuD


tReported by Jos. L. SeaweH)
WOOD. Appellant, vs.. 4. and \. G. RAIL
ROAD co. From Craven. No error.
No appeal lies from thu granting or re-
fusing by the trial judge Of = motion TO
set aside a verdict Is against the weight
OF evidence or as excessive or for other
matter within his discretion. But when
the verdict is set aside as matter Of law
an appeal lies.
BULLOCK. Appellant. IS. BULLOCK.
From Edgecombe. Error.
Where defendant in partition proceed
ing pleads sole seisin and the action is
transferred for trial Of the issue of title.
it is competent upon such trial to show
that defendant entered into possession as
tenant and paid rent for more than 50
years. 104 y. G., 10; lis \. G., 196; l26
n. G.. AZ; 127 y. c., POI.
BEST, Appellant. vs.. b. & 4. MORTGAGE
CO. From Greene. No error.
An order allowing defendant to file an
swer under section PA of The Code is not
renewable.
When a corporation is party to an &C
ton, yerifcation of its pleadings may be
made by any Of its officers.
Rehearings in the Supreme Court are
not allowed ex nero motu.
WHITE, Appellant, VS.. LOKEY ct al.
From Craven. No error.
Action of ejectment. At the first term
there was a general order continuing
cases on the docket with time
TO file pleadings. Counsel for both sides
IN this action We're absent and there was
mr. nhjontjon o., h. To-. L. -
second term plaintiff moved for Judgment
for want of answer and because no de-
Tense bond had been filed as required by
section 237 of The Code. The court in it's
discretion granted 80 days in which to file
answer and plaintiff excepted. Held, not
renewable. Cook VS.. Bank, 1923 n. G.. 149
distinguished.
JESTER vs.. BALTIMORE STEAM
PACKET CO, Appellant. From Hert-
ford. Appeal dismissed.
The courts of this State are open to all
%suitors, resident and nonresident.
whether individuals or corporations.
Where a cause of action instituted in
this State, arose in another State and
was against a nonresident corporation
not doing business in this State and with
out representative here. and service Of
summons % I4dQp Ou ucltIlQdllI > pItSl-
dent, while temporarily engaged in pri-
vate business IN Raleigh, by reading the
summons to him and leaving him a copy
thereof, it is held that the service was
valid. Code, section PIT, subsection /.
Defendants appeal from refusal to dis
miss for want of valid service was pre-
mature.
DUFFY, Appellant, vs.. MEADOWS co.
From Cra avon, No r,,o
The courts are slow to declare any
lawful business a nuisance per Sc.
The fact that doors arising from q
guanO factory are unpleasant and OBJ
jectionable" is no ground for invoking
the aid of the courts in interfering with
the business; it must be shown that the
doors cause some material physical dis
comfort to those living in the neighbour
hood, or cause an injury to their prop
erty.
In an action to abate a nuisance alleged
to be caused by a guano factory in the
city of New Bern, the defendants an
swer denied all the allegations Of the
complaint except those which alleged that
the material used in the factory gives
off doors which may be smelt at great
distances in the direction of the wind
and that the said oder arising from said
material is an unpleasant and objec-
tionabl one"
Held, that the admission Of such alIega-
tions was harmless TO defendant and
plaintiffs motion for judgment upon com
plant and answer was properly denied
and his appeal from refusal Of such mo-
ton was premature.
TAYLOR vs.. y. & c. RAILROAD CO.
Appellant. From HEREFORD. New trial.
Plaintiffs raft of logs was carried from
It's mornings by a freshet in Chowan
River and lodged against the piling of
defendants bridge; the raft was broken
by defendants agents and the logs
passed under the bridge and We're lost.
Plaintiff sues TO recover damages for the
loss of the logs and the gear which held
together the raft, the complaint alleging
that the raft was wilfully, negligently,
wantonly and ~wrongfully broken by de-
PENDANTS agents and that they threw the
rafting gear into the river and that the
gear and logs were lost.
It was proved and admitted that the
safety Of the bridge was imperiled by the
logs. Plaintiffs evidence did not show
tina there We're appliances available to
save the logs and defendants evidence
tended to prove that there We're no such
appliances at hand; Held, that there was
error in charging the jury that If de-
PENDANT could save any Of the logs by
exercising due care with the means
which it then actually had at its COM
mand, it was its duty to do So" without
further ~instructing the jury that such
| would not have been the defendants duty
if the means at hand were not sufficient
to save both the bridge and the logs.
This decision does not apply TO the
destruction Of the rafting gear by de
|; fendant, as there was evidence tending
to prove that the gear was Wantonly
] destroyed.