Court Opinion

ID: 9812059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:36:18.009652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:05.204377
License: Public Domain

ClaRK, J.,
dissenting: I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Montgomery. Since the Act of 1895, Ch. 224, all damages accruing from the construction of a railroad must be sued for within five years and the entire amount of damages must be recovered in one action. -This is a very just enactment and protects such corporations from the oppression of- being sued again and again ad infinitum on the ground of continuing damages. But this action was instituted before the passage of the Act and is governed by the former law which permitted the plaintiff to bring, at his option, an action for permanent damages, in which case the entire damages, “past,'present and prospective,” could be sued for.in one action to which twenty years was the limitation, or, at plaintiff’s election, from time to time, actions could be brought for the continuing damages, in which actions the recovery was limited to damages accruing within three years. Ridley v. Railroad, 118 N. C., 996; Parker v. Railroad, 119 N. C., 677.
Here the com plaint could have been construed either as action for permanent damages or for the continuing an*507nual damages and the plaintiff could elect which remedy he would pursue. Lewis v. Railroad, N. C., 179; Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C.; 601; Holden v. Warren, 118 N. C., 326; Sams v. Price, 119 N. C., 572 (on page 572). The plaintiff and defendant agreed upon treating this as an action for permanent damages and an issue on that aspect of the case was submitted by consent. It (was tried as such, and there was consequently error in refusing the prayer of the plaintiff. The allegation of the complaint and the proof was that the permanent-damage was sustained, if at all, in 1889. . The Statute necessarily ran, therefore, from that year, and as it further appeared that, as to one tract at least, the plaintiff was not the owner thereof till 1890, it was error to grant him judgment. The case should go back for a new trial, when the plaintiff may elect to take a non-suit as to damages for that tract, or the court may, in its discretion, permit him to amend the complaint so as to sue for the continuing damages only. It would seem clear that a person acquiring title to any property — whether real or personal — in 1890 cannot recover damages for a permanent impairment or injury inflicted upon that propertji in 1889 before he acquired it. Salisbury v. Railroad, 98 N. C., 465 (on p. 471).