Case Name: FOREST CITY COTTON COMPANY et al. v. HENRIETTA MILLS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1941-03-19
Citations: 219 N.C. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: FOREST CITY COTTON COMPANY et al. v. HENRIETTA MILLS.
Judges: Sea well, J., joins in this opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 219
Pages: 279–285

Head Matter:
FOREST CITY COTTON COMPANY et al. v. HENRIETTA MILLS.
(Filed 19 March, 1941.)
1. Trespass § la: Waters and Watercourses § 7 — Allegations and evidence held insufficient to establish trespass resulting from operation of mill-dam.
Allegations and evidence to the effect that defendant’s milldam caused the flow of the water in the river above the dam to be impeded, resulting in the deposit of sand in the river bed, which in turn impeded the flow of the water in a tributary creek flowing through plaintiff’s land, resulting in the deposit of sand and other debris in the creek bed so that plaintiff’s land could not be properly drained, without allegation or evidence that the dam ponded water back upon plaintiff’s land, is insufficient to show a trespass and, plaintiff having abandoned its cause of action for negligence in the operation of the milldam, the verdict of the jury in defendant’s favor under instructions to answer the issue of liability in the negative if the jury should find that the defendant made no unreasonable use of its riparian rights and had not taken in whole or in part any of plaintiff’s land, will be upheld.
2. Appeal and Error § 43—
Under the rules of the Court relating to petitions to rehear, the Supreme Court can correct an inadvertence in a former decision in the case without the necessity of another trial in the Superior Court. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 44.
Clarkson, X, dissenting.
Sea well, X, joins in dissent.
PetitioN to rebear tbis case, reported in 218 N. C., 294, 10 S. E. (2d), 806.
Hamrick & Hamrick and Paul Boucher for plaintiff.
C. 0. Ridings and Oscar J. Mooneyham for defendant.

Opinion:
Stacy, C. J.
As was said on tbe rebearing of Peele v. Powell, 161 N. C., 50, 76 S. E., 698, there is no division in tbe Court as to tbe correctness of the propositions of law first announced herein, but upon a fuller consideration of tbe record, tbe conclusion is now reached that tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court should be upheld.
Tbe plaintiff's land is on Puzzle Creek, a tributary of Second Broad River. It is eight miles above tbe defendant's milldam. It is not alleged that tbe waters of tbe river, or of tbe creek, were ponded back upon plaintiff's land, thus creating a trespass as in tbe cases originally cited and relied upon, see Clark v. Guano Co., 144 N. C., 64, 56 S. E., 858, but tbe allegation is that tbe defendant's dam has caused tbe flow of tbe water in tbe river above tbe dam to be impeded and slowed up, and caused sand carried by tbe river to be deposited in tbe river bed, which in turn has impeded and slowed up tbe flow of Puzzle Creek, and caused sand and other debris carried by tbe creek to be deposited in tbe creek bed until "it is now impossible to drain plaintiff's land." See Sink v. Lexington, 214 N. C., 548, 200 S. E., 4.
With tbe allegations of negligence eliminated on tbe bearing and tbe plaintiff stipulating "tbis case may be tried upon tbe theory of permanent damages," it would seem that tbe validity of tbe trial should be sustained. Tbe jury, after bearing tbe evidence and viewing tbe premises, answered tbe issue of liability in favor of tbe defendant.
Our first impression is not confirmed by tbe above portions of tbe record and a further critical re-examination of tbe transcript. Fortunately tbe rule permits a correction of tbe inadvertence without tbe necessity of another trial in tbe Superior Court. Rule 44 of tbe Rules of Practice, 213 N. C., 832; Carruthers v. R. R., 218 N. C., 377.
Petition allowed.