Case Name: BARGER v. CITY OF HICKORY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1902-05-27
Citations: 130 N.C. 550
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARGER v. CITY OF HICKORY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 550–554

Head Matter:
BARGER v. CITY OF HICKORY.
(Filed May 27, 1902.)
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Sewer—Nuisance—Negligence— Damages.
Where, in an action against a city for a nuisance caused by a sewer, put in some years before by the employees of the city, the damages claimed' arise solely from its use by a private person, the city is not liable.
2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Ultra Vires — Nuisance.
The putting in of a sewer by a board of aldermen- of a city for the use of a private person, unauthorized by me charter, is ultra vires, and the aldermen individually, and not the city, ' are liable for a nuisance arising therefrom.
Douglas, J., dissenting.
ActioN by Simeon Barger against the city of Hickory, heard by Judge W. A. Ilolce, and a jury, at February Term, 1902. of 1 lie Superior Court of Catawba County. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed.
No- counsel for the plaintiff.
Self <& Whitener and Thos. M. Hufham, for the- defendant.

Opinion:
Clark, J.
This action, begun before a Justice of the Peace, is for damages from a n-uisance caused by a sewer leading from the Hickory Inn, a private enterprise. The plaintiff testified that there was no drainage of filth through the pipe from the city, but only from the Hickory Inn- — -"nothing bothers witness that comes from city, and only damage done to witness is the drainage that comes from Hickory Inn." It is apparent from this that the plaintiff's remedy is against the owners of Hickory Inn for dam,ages, or by injunction, or both, and the Court should have granted the motion to nonsuit plaintiff at the clo-se of the evidence. In the language of the late Chief Justice Pearson, the plaintiff "has the wrong sow the ear."
The only evidence offered against the city is that some of its employees,with authority of its Board of Aldermen, put in, or aided to construct, the sewer years ago>. But the damage arises not from putting the sewer in, but from its use now by the Hickory Inn. Besides, the putting in a sewer to the hotel was an ultra vires act of the Aldermen, unauthorized by the charter of the city, and if that were the cause of action, the liability, if any, would rest upon the Aldermen individually and not upon the taxpayers of the city, from whom the Aider-men had no authority to act in putting in a sewer to a hotel in which the city had no interest. Dillon Mun. Corp. (4th Ed.), Secs. 89-92, 451, 969-910, the last-named sections mere especially.
Error.