Court Opinion

ID: 9808309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:33:30.082454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:51.712112
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
concurring: I- concur in the opinion of i¥r. Justice Adams, but there is a feature that I desire to stress. The complaint alleges: “The said defendants have permitted the said community to become dilapidated in appearance, permitting one of the lakes, which was advertised as a major attraction in the exploitation of the said lands, to be drained off, and the same has become unsanitary, and threatens to become a menace to health, and a nuisance generally, all to the great damage of this plaintiff,” etc.
This aspect of the complaint is indefinite and uncertain. I think the law well settled that if defendants own and control the lake and allow or permit it to be a menace to health, and a nuisance to the neighborhood and those who own property and live around it are materially affected by the bad and noxious odors, etc., plaintiff would have a cause of action against defendants. See Snell v. Chatham, 150 N. C., 729; Swinson v. Realty Co., 200 N. C., 276; Holton v. Oil Co., 201 N. C., 744.