Case Name: GILLIKIN & GASKELL v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1908-03-04
Citations: 147 N.C. 39
Docket Number: 
Parties: GILLIKIN & GASKELL v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 147
Pages: 39–41

Head Matter:
GILLIKIN & GASKELL v. THE LAKE DRUMMOND CANAL COMPANY.
(Filed 4 March, 1908).
1. Negligence — Mooring Barge in Canal.
It is actionable negligence on the part of the defendant to improperly moor a barge in its canal, so as to cause injury to plaintiffs’ vessel while it was being towed by defendant through its said canal.
2. Negligence — “Obstruction.”
A large barge, negligently moored to the bank of a canal, so that thereby it is drawn or floats out into the canal, causing injury to plaintiffs’ vessel, inflicting serious damage, is within the meaning of the term “obstruction.”
3. Pleadings — Allegations Sufficient.
A cause of action is sufficiently set out in the complaint when' the facts alleged apprise the defendant fully of the grievance asserted against him and the injury for which redress is demanded.
4. Same — Allegations Specific — Motion.
When the facts alleged in the complaint sufficiently state a cause of action, the defendant should move to have them set out more specifically, should he so desire.
Civil aotioN to recover for injury to vessel of plaintiffs, caused by alleged negligence on tbe part of defendant, tried before Lyon, J., and a jury, at Eall Term, 1907, of tbe Superior Court of Carteret County.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant excepted and .appealed.
Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of tbe Court.
Abernethy & Davis for plaintiffs.
Moore & Dunn for defendant.

Opinion:
PIoKE, J.
We find no error in tbe record wbicb entitles defendant to a new trial. There was ample evidence of negligence on tbe part of tbe defendant company.
Tbe testimony tended to show that, in June, 1904, tbe defendant undertook, for hire, to tow tbe plaintiffs' vessel through their canal, and was engaged in this undertaking when they passed a large barge of tbe defendant company moored to tbe bank of tbe canal; that tbe suction of tbe tug drew tbe barge away from tbe bank into tbe course of tbe plaintiffs' vessel, causing a collision and tbe damages complained of; that tbe barge, wbicb was tbe property and under control of tbe company at that time, was improperly and negligently moored, and that tbe plaintiffs were free from fault.
Tbe objection chiefly urged for error was that tbe complaint did not charge or allege negligence in mooring tbe barge as tbe basis of plaintiffs' demand, but tbe objection is without merit. Tbe complaint, after stating tbe contract, and that defendant was engaged in tbe undertaking at the time of tbe occurrence, and was tbe owner and in control of tbe tug and tbe barge, continues as follows:
"Sec. 5. That defendant, at or near West Greek, about two-thirds of tbe distance from Wallacetown to Lynch's Wharf, in tbe said canal, negligently and wrongfully and carelessly obstructed its said canal by a large barge, and negligently and wrongfully and carelessly caused plaintiff?s schooner, tbe Dee G. Faren, to be towed by said tug down and upon tbe said barge with great force, and caused said schooner to run foul of and strike against said barge.
"Sec. 6. That, by reason of the obstruction of the canal, and also by reason'of said defendant's towing said schooner down and upon said barge, causing her to run .foul of and strike same, said schooner was greatly damaged," etc.
A large barge, negligently moored to the bank of a canal, which, by reason of said negligence, is drawn or floats out into the channel of the canal, causing a collision with a passing vessel and inflicting serious damage, comes clearly within the meaning of the term "obstruction," defined by the books to be "An impediment, a hindrance, that which impedes progress." Hart v. Albany, 3 Paige, 213. The complaint, we think, contains a sufficient statement of facts to make out plaintiffs' cause of action and to apprise the defendant fully of the grievance asserted against him, and the injury for which redress is demanded. Assuredly, on the facts presented, if defendant desired that the complaint be made more specific, it should have made a motion to that effect. Allen v. Railway, 120 N. C., 548.
There is no error, and the judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed.
No Error.