Crisp v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1931
• Docket Number: 645.
• Citation: 158 S.E. 845,201 N.C. 46
• Parties: CRISP et ux. v. NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

158 S.E. 845

201 N.C. 46

CRISP et ux. v. NANTAHALA POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 645.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

June 15, 1931

Appeal from Superior Court, Graham County; Moore, Judge.

Action by L. A. Crisp and wife against the Nantahala Power & Light Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

No error.

Exceptions and assignments of error respecting evidence as to wrongful entry on land need not be considered, where jury was assessed no damages therefor.

This is an action brought by plaintiffs against the defendant for the possession of certain land, alleged to be owned by them which defendant took possession of without their consent and built a hydro-electric line across a portion or part of their land, to the damage of plaintiffs. It is alleged by plaintiffs that defendant for the purpose of transferring the power from Santeetlah to its proposed dam site at Nantahala constructed the transmission line across their land during the months of January and February, 1930, and the defendant through its servants, agents, and employees willfully unlawfully, and forcefully and after being forbidden, entered and trespassed upon the plaintiff's premises, dragging poles and rubbish, digging holes, and erecting poles, frames and braces thereon, on which it strung, over plaintiffs' land, wires and cables for carrying high and dangerous voltages of electricity and, since completion of its said transmission, has turned on and caused continually to pass over and through the said land over plaintiffs' premises a high, dangerous current voltage of electricity, making the premises unsafe, rendering it unfit for subdivision, development, erection of buildings, trees, or other usage which would be to plaintiffs' advantage and profit, and all to plaintiffs' great damage, etc. That while a part of the said transmission line is located on the railroad right of way, it results in an increased burden to plaintiffs' land, and defendant had no right without plaintiffs' consent to use the railroad right of way for said purposes as they are informed and believe, and that a part of the said transmission line is on plaintiffs' premises and outside of the railroad right of way.

The defendant denied some of the material allegations of the complaint, and says: "That it is a public service corporation, duly chartered and organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina; that its principal office and place of business is in Bryson City, in said State; that it is engaged in the development and production of hydro-electric energy and the distribution, use and sale of the same to the public; that it is developing, maintaining, and constructing hydro-electric in the counties of Western North Carolina, and furnishing and distributing electric current to the general public in the towns of Robbinsville and Andrews, and is preparing to supply current to other users in the State; that it intends in good faith to increase its production and distribution of hydro-electric current, and that in order to insure a constant supply of electric current to its consumers in the Towns of Andrews and Robbinsville and at other places in the counties of Cherokee and Graham, and other territory adjacent thereto, and in order to guarantee a constant supply of current to all users of the same connected with and tributary to its plants, it has constructed a transmission line connecting its plant on Hiawassee River with the Santeetlah Power House of Tallassee Power Company in Graham County, from which company it has a contract for power in case of breakdown of its Hiawassee Plant, or lack of current for its customers. *** That it 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 said lines across and upon the lands of the plaintiffs, and to remove such obstructions on said land as might interfere with the use of the same, and that if the plaintiffs own an interest and can establish title to the lands described in their complaint, that this defendant stands ready and willing to pay to them such permanent damage as they may have sustained by reason of the construction, maintenance, and use of said transmission line."

The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, were as follows:

"1. Are the plaintiffs the owners of the lands described in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"2. Did the defendant enter upon said lands of plaintiffs and dig holes, place poles, string wire thereupon in the construction of an electric transmission line as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"3. If so, was such entry of the defendant willful, wanton and wrongful? Answer: Yes.

"4. What damage, if any, are plaintiffs entitled to recover of the defendant by reason of said willful, wanton and wrongful acts and conducts? Answer: --.

"5. Have plaintiffs' said lands been diminished in value as result of the location, erection and maintenance of the defendant's transmission line over and across said lands? Answer: Yes.

"6. If so, what permanent damage or compensation are plaintiffs entitled to recover of the defendant by reason thereof? Answer: $1,000.00."

The court below signed 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 appellees.

CLARKSON J.

Under "Eminent Domain," chapter 33, C. S. § 1706, is the following: "The right of eminent...