Hooper v. Carr Lumber Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | 167. |
| Citation | 1 S.E.2d 818,215 N.C. 308 |
| Parties | HOOPER v. CARR LUMBER CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The plaintiff sued for recovery of damages for injury to his lands, caused by the overflow of Mills River, and the consequent flooding and washing of the lands, alleged to have been brought about by the negligence of the defendant in its logging operations on the banks and slopes of the river, and the improper construction of bridges across the river, and want of due care in the maintenance and subsequent removal of the same.
It is alleged that for a great number of years the defendant maintained a railroad for the transportation of its lumber which had been cut in the Pisgah National Forest and other boundaries above plaintiff's property; that in these operations the defendant built and operated a logging railroad, and negligently constructed trestles over the main stream of Mills River and its tributaries, which were not so constructed as to permit a sufficient clearance for the flow of water under them in the natural course of the river; that the manner of construction of these trestles or bridges was such as to obstruct the water, cause logs and debris washed down the stream from flood water to be lodged against the trestles, allowing the water to strike with great force against them. It is further alleged that in addition to such negligent construction of its trestles and bridges defendant cut great trees on the river, leaving the tree laps on the banks of the river which, with accumulated debris and wreckage, floated down the river under ordinary circumstances, washed upon plaintiff's property, lodged against the banks of the river, caused the river to turn from its natural course and flow through plaintiff's land, to plaintiff's great damage. It is further alleged that defendant ceased its logging operations in Henderson County during 1937 and left remaining on the ground logs, timber debris, and wreckage, which caused the damage complained of. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant knew, or had reason to expect, that as a natural consequence of its alleged negligent acts damage would accrue to the plaintiff; and asks as compensation the sum of $3,000.
The defendant denies that it was negligent in any respect, and sets up as a further defense that the property upon which its logging operations had taken place was acquired by the United States Government through a conveyance covering a large boundary of Henderson and Transylvania Counties, and that under this contract the defendant ceased its operations and vacated the property in the year 1934, since which time it had no right to go upon any part of the land for any purpose and specifically pleads that all things done by it in the premises occurred more than three years before the institution of the suit, and pleads the three year statute of limitations.
The plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the defendant had conducted the logging operations described in the complaint and had left upon the location trees, tree laps and debris, as described in the complaint; that the construction of the trestles used by the defendant were of such a nature as to obstruct the natural flow of water, under certain conditions, and that defendant had left these trestles and portions thereof under such conditions as to obstruct the flow of water and divert it at flood times; that logs and laps left from the operations of defendant had washed down upon plaintiff's land, and that about ten acres of the bottom land was...
To continue reading
Request your trial