Ingleside Mfg. Co. v. Charleston Light & Water Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1907
• Citation: 56 S.E. 664,76 S.C. 95
• Parties: INGLESIDE MFG. CO. v. CHARLESTON LIGHT & WATER CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

56 S.E. 664

76 S.C. 95

INGLESIDE MFG. CO. v. CHARLESTON LIGHT & WATER CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 11, 1907

Appeal from Common Pleas, Circuit Court of Charleston County; Watts Judge.

Action by the Ingleside Manufacturing Company against the Charleston Light & Water Company. From an order granting an injunction defendant appeals. Reversed.

Miller & Whaley, for appellant. Mitchell & Smith and J. Lamb Perry for respondent.

WOODS J.

The Charleston Light & Water Company is a corporation organized under an act entitled " An act to incorporate the Charleston Light & Water Company," approved February 19, 1898 (22 St. at Large, p. 934), for the purpose, as expressed in said act, "of introducing a water and light supply into the city of Charleston for its public purposes." The act contains these provisions "The said corporation may purchase and hold all such real and personal estate as may from time to time be required for its purposes." "It shall have full power to lease, construct and operate water works, gas, oil, electric, or other lightings, heating and power plants." "The said company shall have full power and authority to take, hold and convey water from any point, from any river, creek, springs or other sources within sixty-five miles of the city of Charleston." ""And shall have full power and authority to make canals, build dams, erect locks and lay conduits or tunnels for the conveyance of the said water through, under or along any highway or railroad track or tracks in the country adjacent." "The said corporation being for public purposes shall have the right to condemn such property and rights of way or water courses as may be necessary to enable the said company, or the corporation organized by it, or with its assistance, to successfully construct, erect and operate the said canals, locks, dams, conduits or tunnels, water works, electric, gas, oil, or other lighting, heating and power plants, on the payment to the owner or owners thereof just compensation, such property, rights of way or water courses to be condemned and such compensation to be determined in the manner now provided by law for the condemnation of lands and rights of way by railroad corporations."

Subsequently, by the following provision of an act passed in 1905 (24 St. at Large, p. 1022), the defendant was specifically authorized to construct and maintain a dam across Goose creek: "That the right, power and privilege to construct, erect and maintain a dam across said Goose creek is hereby authorized, granted and given to the said Charleston Light & Water Company, its successors and assigns: Provided, The said Charleston Light & Water Company shall be liable for all such damages as may be established in any court of competent jurisdiction by any land owner claiming that his land has been damaged by reason of the erection of the said dam: And provided, further, that nothing herein shall impair any navigation or other rights of any riparian owner, other than the closing of said creek, by the construction, erection and maintenance of said dam at said location."

On or about the 7th of February, 1906, the plaintiffs, the Ingleside Manufacturing Company and the Woodstock Hardwood & Spool Manufacturing Company, instituted separate actions against the defendant, Charleston Light & Water Company, for damages arising from the alleged flooding of a large tract of land, which was owned by one of the plaintiff corporations and upon which the other, under a lease, had erected a valuable manufacturing plant. In these actions, the plaintiffs sought also to have the defendant enjoined from backing or keeping water on their property. It is important to note that the damages asked in these actions were expressly limited to the year 1905. The defendant answered, setting up its statutory rights and franchises, but admitting the unlawful flooding of a small part of the land. While these actions were pending, the defendant instituted proceedings under the statute to condemn the property of plaintiffs required for its purposes. To the notice of intention to condemn, plaintiffs responded, denying the right of condemnation; and thereafter, in April, 1906, commenced this action to enjoin the condemnation proceedings, alleging as the grounds for the relief sought (1) that the purpose of the proceedings was to take away from them "their rights of action for damages already occasioned and still being occasioned by the trespass aforesaid"; and (2) that the defendant had lost its right to institute condemnation proceedings by entering upon and taking possession of the land as a trespasser without first taking steps to condemn in the manner authorized by law. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, in that "the alleged trespass by the defendant upon the lands of the plaintiffs anterior to the proceedings to condemn, the institution of actions at law by the plaintiffs, and the other alleged facts set...