Hand v. Catawba Power Co

• Citation: 90 S.C. 267,73 S.E. 187
• Parties: HAND. v. CATAWBA POWER CO.
• Decision Date: 28 December 1911
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

73 S.E. 187
(90 S.C. 267)

HAND.
v.
CATAWBA POWER CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Dec. 28, 1911.

1. Evidence (§ 501^*)—Nonexpert Opinions —Admissibility.

When the matter to which evidence relates cannot be reproduced or clearly described to the jury, a witness, though not an expert, may give his opinion, after stating the facts and circumstances upon which it is based.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2292-2305; Dec. Dig. § 501.*]

2. Evidence (§ 474*) — Nonexpert Testimony—Effect of Dam.

In an action for obstructing a stream to the injury of plaintiff's dam, his nonexpert witnesses were properly permitted to state their opinions that defendant's dam caused plaintiff's injury, where the witnesses had for many years known and observed plaintiff's water power, were familiar with the creek and the surrounding country, and had observed the results of freshets in the streams involved.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2196-2219; Dec. Dig. § 474.*]

3. Evidence (§ 131*)—Admissibility—Relevancy.

In an action for maintaining a dam in a river in such manner as to obstruct the use of plaintiff's dam in a tributary creek above defendant's dam, defendant could not show similar conditions as to deposit of sand, etc., in another creek, emptying into the river below defendant's dam.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Dec. Dig. § 131.*]

4. Waters and Water Courses (§ 53*)— Water Power—Rights of Upper Proprietors.

While an upper riparian owner's rights are infringed by maintenance of a dam below in such manner as not to give him all the fall between his upper and his lower line as the water is accustomed to flow, the rights may be infringed without decreasing the fall, as where, by throwing backwater to the upper owner's line, sand collects in the stream above, so as to raise the bed uniformly from the upper owner's lower line to his upper line.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Waters and Water Courses, Cent. Dig. § 45; Dec. Dig. § 53.*]

5. Appeal and Error (§ 1066*)—Harmless Error—Instructions.

In an action for obstructing a stream by maintenance of a dam, error in instructing that if plaintiff was injured by water backed upon his water power and consequent deposit of sand in the stream, caused by defendant's dam, defendant was liable, there being no evidence that backwater reached plaintiff's lower line, was harmless, where it appeared that plaintiff's damage was caused by the dam, and there was no claim that backwater...