Court Opinion

ID: 9812058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:36:18.00661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:05.203404
License: Public Domain

MONTGOMERY, J.,
dissenting: This action was commenced in 1893. The defendant’s road was constructed in 1889. The plaintiff alleges, with sufficient clearness, that the land, of which he was in the possession, was permanently injured by the unskillful construction of its road way and ditches by the defendant company. The fifth section of the complaint alleges “that in the construction of its said road, the defendant dug or caused to be dug a ditch on each side of the bed of said road, whereby a large and unusual volume of water was diverted from its natural channel and proper course, and-turned upon the lands and into the canal and ditches of the plaintiff, thereby flooding the lands and choking- the ditches with sand, mud and trash, so that the diverted waters as well as the waters of the plaintiff's land became ponded upon the said land, rendering the same, which herelofore yielded good crops, worthless or nearly so for purposes of agriculture.” In another paragraph of the complaint (the sixth) the plaintiff alleged that, by reason of the diversion of water and the obstructions complained of, the land had been damaged, and also that the crops grown thereon have been injured within three years next before the bringing of this suit.
The question of damages for a continuing injury, such as might be recovered upon the theory of abating a nuisance, and raised by the sixth paragraph of the complaint, seems to have been abandoned on tire trial and the issue which was submitted to the jury was'on the matter of permanent injury to the land. In fact, in the argument here, it was admitted that by consent in the trial below the action was tried on the issue whether the land had been permanently injured or not.
*505The land alleged to have been danaged was described in. the complaint as consisting of two tracts, Briar Swamp and Mill Branch. The plaintiffs had been in possession of the first named tract since 1871, and the other since 1890. Both tracts were allotted to the feme plaintiff in the partition of the land of Albert Móore in 1890.
The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury “that it is admitted that the defendant’s railroad was constructed during the year 1889, and if you believe the plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiffs acquired title to the land in 1890: that the original trespass or cause of damage w as done by the constructing of defendant’s railroad in 1889, and the plaintiffs, not being the owners of the land at the time the original tresspass was committed, cannot sustain their action and are not entitled to recover anything in this action.” The court declined to give the instruction. It ought to have been given. The plaintiffs alleged that the damage was done by the cutting of the ditches along the' defendant’s railroad in 1889, and there was no allegation of permanent injury to the land at any other time At that time (1889) the plaintiffs had no title, to either of the tracts of land. They could not recover for permanent injury to the land, because they were not its owners. The only right they had in 1889 was that of possession.
The counsel who argued the case before this court seemed to think that there were some inconsistencies, especially as to the application of the Statute of Limitations, in the cases of Ridley v. Railroad, 118 N. C., 1010; and Parker v. Railroad, 118 N. C. 996. I have examined those appeals and can see no inconsistency.
In Ridley’s case, on p. 1-019, four principles of law were deduced and held to be decisive of the questions involved in that appeal. In Parker’s case the same rulings were approved. No. 4 of the deductions referred to in Ridley's case *506was in the words: “The Statute of Limitations begins to run in such cases, not necessarily from the construction of the road, but from the time when the first injury was sustained;” and, in Parker’s case, the court said “the right of action accrues in such cases when the first injury is sustained.” This last statment was intended to be that of the genera] rule. There may be cases, however, where the action necessarily should be brought at the time of the construction of the road, as where the injury is manifestly permanent, and done at ODce by the construction of the road, and is dependent upon no contingency.
The rule, as announced in Ridley’s appeal, had in view such cases, as well as those where the first injury was the beginning of the running of the Statute.