Colvard v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1933 |
| Docket Number | 647. |
| Citation | 167 S.E. 472,204 N.C. 97 |
| Parties | COLVARD v. NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Graham County; A. M. Stack, Judge.
Action by A. Hardy Colvard against the Nantahala Power & Light Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
No error.
Instruction that if heavily charged wires would prevent persons from buying land across which power company constructed transmission line it was element in estimating damages held not error.
Instruction that power company's transmission line across plaintiff's land carried 66,000 voltage and that its presence might be dangerous and was element in estimating damages held not error.
This was an action brought by plaintiff to recover of defendant certain land belonging to him and damages. The defendant after denying the material allegations of the complaint for a further defense alleges that the defendant is advised and believes that it had the right as a public service corporation under the laws of the state of North Carolina to construct its transmission lines across and upon the lands of the plaintiff, and that it also had the right by and with the consent of the Graham County Railroad Company to construct and operate said transmission line upon the railroad's right of way. And that its only obligation to the plaintiff as compensation for said right of way is the reasonable value of the increased burden on the easement of the railroad company caused by the construction of said transmission line. That the defendant is further advised that upon the assessment and payment of such permanent damages as the plaintiff may have sustained by reason of the construction maintenance, and operation of said transmission line, that the defendant is entitled to the unrestricted use of a right of way on and across the plaintiff's land for the maintenance and operation of its transmission line. Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant prays judgment that such actual damages as defendant may have sustained by reason of the construction and operation of defendant's transmission line be ascertained and determined, and that the defendant, on payment of any amount assessed as damages, be granted a permanent right of way over and through the plaintiff's lands described in the complaint; and for such other and further relief as the court may deem meet and proper.
The following issues were submitted to the jury and their answer thereto:
The court below rendered judgment on the verdict. The defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court.
R. L. Phillips, of Robbinsville, and S.W. Black, of Bryson City, for appellant.
T. M. Jenkins, of Robbinsville, for appellee.
The transmission line of defendant was constructed a distance of 2,792 feet angling across plaintiff's 84 3/4-acre tract and 197 feet across his 2.09-acre tract. There are 12 poles and one brace pole on the land. The power cables sag down and are about 15 to 21 feet from the ground, and carry 66,000 voltage. The plaintiff testified, in part, unobjected to: Crisp v. Light Co., 201 N.C. 46, 158 S.E. 845.
Many witnesses corroborated the plaintiff. The defendant's witnesses estimated the damage from $245 to $300.
A witness for plaintiff, Claude Cape, testified in part: "In my opinion the reasonable market value of both tracts just before the transmission line was built was between seven and eight thousand dollars, and just after the erection of the transmission line across them the market value was three thousand dollars."
On cross-examination by defendant, the witness stated:
Defendant's counsel asked the witness the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chapter 7 The Preemption Issue Government Contractor Defense Market Share Liability and other Developing Issues
...(La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978); Criscuola v. Power Auth., 81 N.Y.2d 649, 602 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1993); Colvard v. Nantahala Power & Light Co., 204 N.C. 97, 167 S.E. 472 (1933); Ohio Pub. Serv. Co. v. Dehring, 34 Ohio App. 532, 172 N.E. 448 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929); Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co. v. Kelly, 17......