Court Opinion

ID: 9807409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:02:57.343071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:49.101233
License: Public Domain

DeviN, J.,
dissenting: I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion reached in this case. In my opinion the motion for judgment of nonsuit should have been denied.
“Upon a motion as of nonsuit, all the evidence which makes for the plaintiff’s claim and tends to support his cause of action is to be considered in its most favorable light for plaintiff, and he is entitled to every reasonable intendment thereon and every reasonable inference therefrom.” Owens v. Lumber Co., 210 N. C., 504, 187 S. E., 804.
Applying this principle to the evidence here, I think the case should have been submitted to the jury. The contract between the parties conveyed to defendant a right of way over plaintiff’s land for a spur track to plaintiff’s place of business, together with right to construct and operate extensions of said track “to serve with shipping facilities industries located on said (plaintiff’s) land.” There was evidence tending to show that defendant has imposed an additional servitude upon plaintiff’s land by the increased and frequent use of locomotives and cars upon said spur track alongside plaintiff’s wholesale grocery establishment, to plaintiff’s substantial injury, in order to supply shipping facilities to industries located upon other lands than those of the plaintiff.
ClaeKSON and SchekcK, JJ., concur in this opinion;