Case Name: JESSE A. GWALTNEY v. THE SCOTTISH CAROLINA TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1892-09
Citations: 111 N.C. 547
Docket Number: 
Parties: JESSE A. GWALTNEY v. THE SCOTTISH CAROLINA TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY.
Judges: Burwell, J.: I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 547–571

Head Matter:
JESSE A. GWALTNEY v. THE SCOTTISH CAROLINA TIMBER AND LAND COMPANY.
Action for Damages — Floatable Streams — Practice—Evidence— Floating Logs — Navigable River — Riparian Rights.
1. When, upon any aspect of his case, viewed in the most favorable light for him, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, the issues should be submitted to the jury.
2. In an action for damages to a dam, shown to have been done by defendant’s floating logs in an unnavigable river, there was conflicting evidence as to whether it was. a floatable stream: Held, that the burden of showing its character as such was on the defendant.
3. A river, the character of which was not definitely or unquestionably shown, in which logs are not.shown to have been floated in the parts in controversy until recently, and then only by the defendant, though they had been usually floated in other parts of the river above the parts used by the defendant, is not shown to be a floatable stream.
4. Qucery, as to whether in floatable streams the right to float logs should not be exercised with reference to the rights of riparian proprietors.
MacRae and Bur well, JJ., concurring.
Clark and Avery, JJ., dissenting.
This was a civil action, tried at the December Term, 1890, of Buncombe Superior Court, before Philips, J.
At the close of plaintiff’s evidence, the character of which may be gathered from the opinions and dissenting opinion, the Court intimated that, assuming the facts as testified to be true, the plaintiff could not recover, and that he would so instruct the jury. Whereupon, the plaintiff submitted to non-suit and appealed.
Below will be found the complaint and answer—
1. That on or about the 12th daj' of January, 1888, the plaintiff was, and still is, the owner and in the possession of a tract of land lying in the county of Buncombe, State of North Carolina, on the east side of French Broad river, at the mouth of a small branch called Davis branch, about two miles south of Alexander, in said county.
2. That plaintiff had, several years prior to the 12th day of January, 1888, erected out of stone and wood, at a cost of thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300), a dam and fishery, extending along the said river opposite the plaintiff’s land (plaintiff’s land extending to and being along the banks of the river), for the purpose of trapping fish from said river.
3. That the plaintiff caught yearly in the said fishery large quantities of fish, sufficient to supply his family and the men employed on his farm, and also enabling him to sell large quantities of fish ; that the value of the fish consumed by his family and his employees was five hundred dollars ($500) yearly, and the sale of fish brought him a yearly revenue of five hundred dollars ($500).
4. That the said French Broad river, at the point at which said dam and fishery are situated, is not a navigable stream, and that the said dam erected by the plaintiff did not extend entirely across the river, but only about two-thirds (f) across, and that one-third (J) of the river was open for the use of the public, and made a suitable passage-way for logs, or other things floating or rafted down said river, and for the free passage up and down said stream for fish.
5. That commencing in the month of October,^ 1887 (and from that time until now), the defendant undertook to float down the said river from the counties of Henderson and Transylvania large quantities of poplar logs from twelve (12) to twenty (20) inches in diameter, and from twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet in length, and on the said 12th day of January, 1888, was engaged in the business of floating the said logs down the said river.
6. That the defendant, on the said 12th day of January, 1888, took so little and such bad care in the direction and management of the floating of said logs, that large quantities of said logs, to-wit, the number of one hundred and- fifty (150), by and through its carelessness, negligence and mismanagement, gathered and lodged in plaintiff’s said dam and fishery, and utterly demolished and destroyed both the said dam and the said fishery.
7. That by reason of the utter destruction of said dam and fishery, the said plaintiff has been damaged to the amount of thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300), the amount actually expended by him in the erection of said dam and fishery, and has also been deprived of the revenue derived from the consumption and sale of fish caught from the said fishery, to his damage fifteen hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents ($1,583.33).
8 The plaintiff is pecuniarily unable to rebuild said dam and fishery, and will be deprived of the use of the same for a long time, to his damage one thousand dollars ($1,000).
Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant—
1. For the sum of thirty-eight hundred and eighty-three and 33-100 dollars ($3,883.33).
2. For the costs of this action.
And for a second cause of action, the plaintiff says—
1. That at the time stated in the first cause of action, the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a certain fishery in the French Broad river at the point described in the said first cause of action and constructed and maintained as therein mentioned of great value, to-wit, five thousand dollars ($5,000).
2.That being so lawfully possessed, and in the enjoyment of said fishery, on the 12th day of January, 1888, the defendant wrongfully and negligently suffered and permitted certain logs, which they were engaged in floating and rafting down said river, to be driven against and upon plaintiff’s said dam and fishery, whereby the same was totally destroyed, to his great damage, to-wit, in the sum of thirty-eight hundred and eighty-three and 33-100 dollars ($3,883.33).
Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant—
1. For the sum of thirty-eight hundred and eighty-three and 33-100 dollars ($3,388.33).
2. For the costs of this action.
And the said defendant, answering complaint of the plaintiff, heretofore filed herein, says—
1. That the allegations of the first paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
2. That the allegations of the second paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
3. That the allegations of the third paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
4. That the allegations of the fourth paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
5. That the allegations of the fifth paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
6. That the allegations of the sixth paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
7. That the allegations of the seventh paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
8. That the allegations of the eighth paragraph of the amended complaint are untrue.
And the defendant, answering the second cause of action alleged in the said amended complaint, says—
1. That the allegations contained in paragraph one of the said second cause of action are not true.
2. That the allegations contained in paragraph two of the-said second cause of action are not true.
For further defence, the defendant alleges—
1. That the said French Broad river is such a stream as is capable of being used for floating rafts, boats and logs,, and is, in this sense, a navigable stream, and subject'to the puble use as a public highway and easement, and, as such public highway and easement, has been, for a long time-prior to the 1st day of October, 1887, and before the plaintiff erected said dam, if he erected it at all, so used by all persons desiring to float logs and rafts and boats thereon.
Wherefore, the defendant demands judgment against the plaintiff herein for its costs.
Messrs. Theo. F. Davidson and Thomas A. Jones, for plaintiff»
Mr. Charles A. Moore, for defendant.

Opinion:
Shepherd, C. J.:
At the close of the testimony, his Honor intimated an opinion " that, assuming the facts testified to-be true, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover," and thereupon the plaintiff submitted to nonsuit and appealed. The question in issue was whether the French Broad river, from Asheville down to the plaintiff's dam, was a floatable stream* There was testimony relating to the character of the river above Asheville, and also variant if not conflicting testimony as to its floatable capacity below that city. It would be difficult, therefore, to ascertain upon what facts his Honor based his ruling, unless we consider that he meantthat in no aspect of the testimony could the plaintiff maintain his action. This, of course, is the view which we must take, and it is our duty to base our judgment upon that testimony which is most, favorable to the plaintiff. We are not permitted to attempt a reconciliation of the testimony so as to make out a case for the defendant, but we should examine it with the opposite view of ascertaining whether there is any evidence which tends to sustain the plaintiff's action. Gould on Pleading, ch. 9, sec. 65; Knight v. Railroad, decided at this term; Rond v. Wool, 107 N. C., 146.
Now the plaintiff's dam, having been injured by the logs of the defendant, as stated by the witnesses, it was incumbent on the latter to show that the river was a floatable stream at the point where the injury was inflicted, and, if it has failed to do this, the plaintiff was entitled to recover. It is said that "it is not necessary, in order to establish the easement in a river, to show that it is suceptible of use continuously during the whole year for the purpose of floatage; but it is sufficient if it appear that business men may calculate that, with tolerable regularity as to the season, the water will rise to and remain at such a height as will enable them to make it profitable to use it as a highway for transporting logs to market or mills lower down." Accepting this as a correct proposition of law, we are unable to see how the defendant has brought itself within its terms. It appears from the testimony of R. B. Justice that the water " above Asheville is stiller and deeper," and while it is stated by the witness Wilkerson that the river has been used for floating logs for fifteen or twenty years, he expressly testifies, upon further examination, that the statement was made in reference to the river above Asheville.
It is apparent from the tesdmony of the witness Wilkerson that all of his floating was done above Asheville, and it does not show that there has been any floating of logs below that place except what has been done by the defendant, and as to this he does not state how long.the defendant has been so using the river, or its condition when the floating was done. It is perfectly consistent, therefore, with the testimony of the witness Zachary, whosays that heand hisbrother, between the first of December, 1887, and the first of May, 1888, put logs in the river for the defendant, to go to its mill in Knoxville, Tenn. The witness Garret testifies that prior to the •organization of the defendant no logs were floated down the river from Asheville. So, taking all of the testimony, we have nothing which expressly shows that the river below Asheville was ever used by anyone for floating logs except during the six months mentioned by Zachary, and, for aught that appears, the floating may have been done in time of extraordinary freshets. Neither is there any definite testimony as to the character of the river below Asheville, as it is by no means certain whether Zachary's testimony on this subject •does not refer to some point above that place, where he seems to have resided, and where he worked, as testified, for the defendant. When we add that it is stated by one of the witnesses that the river " is not capable of floating logs unless there is a freshet," it would seem that the defendant has failed to bring itself within the principles above mentioned. How can it be said, upon such testimony, that " business men may calculate that, with tolerable regularity as to the season," the water below Asheville can be profitably used for the floatage of logs? An ingenious advocate might possibly induce a jury to come to such a conclusion, but it is very certain that this Court has no right to do so; and especially is this true when we consider that it is our duty, not to determine whether there is any evidence to sustain the defence, but whether there is any possible mew of the testimony upon which the plaintiff may recover. As we have indicated, it must be assumed that the plaintiff has suffered injury at the hands of the defendant, and, the river not being a navigable stream, it is incumbent upon the defendant to establish that it is floatable within the legal meaning of that term. This being so, we cannot see how the case could have been taken from the jury. It is true that the plaintiff cannot contradict his own witnesses, but as we have seen that, taking all that they testify to be true, it is doubtful whether it makes out a case for the defendant, and it is very certain that, if we take the view most favorable.to the plaintiff, he is entitled to recover. There being some testimony tending to sustain the-action, we think that we should simply grant a new trial without attempting to pass upon the very important questions discussed by counsel.
Conceding that this is a floatable stream (and we think there is testimony tending to show that it is), another serious question to be determined is whether the right to float logs must not be exercised with reference'to the rights of riparian proprietors. To sustain the nonsuit in this case would, we fear, be construed as an indication that the right of floatage is paramount to all other interests, and we are not prepared to assent to such a proposition. However this may be, we think the facts should either be ascertained, or that there should be instructions clearly presenting the questions to be determined. Until this is done, we should refuse to decide questions involving such grave consequences to a large number of citizens owning property on the said river.
Error.
Burwell, J.: I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice.