King v. Ward

• Decision Date: 27 February 1935
• Docket Number: 309.
• Citation: 178 S.E. 577,207 N.C. 782
• Parties: KING v. WARD et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

178 S.E. 577

207 N.C. 782

KING v. WARD et al.

No. 309.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

February 27, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Daniels, Judge.

Action by T. B. King against W. G. Ward, trading as the Pitt Gin Company, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Mere location and building of cotton gin on lot opposite residential lot did not constitute a nuisance, so that diminished value of plaintiff's property from location of gin could not be considered as element of damage.

The plaintiff lives in the town of Farmville at the corner of Horne avenue and Moore's lane. Across the street, about 50 feet from plaintiff's residence, the defendant constructed a cotton gin. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that during the ginning season crowds of customers of the gin began to gather in and about the premises and upon the street; that teams stood in the street from about 3 o'clock in the morning until as late as 1 o'clock at night; that the droppings from these teams created noisome odors; and that the teams were fed in the street, and as a result hay and fodder were continually blown across his premises. There was further evidence to the effect that the defendant at the time complained of had no toilets upon the premises, and that his customers used plaintiff's "back yard and wood pile to dump their refuse." Flies accumulated, and the constant flow of lint and dust from the cotton gin covered plaintiff's house and furniture and furnishings. There was further evidence that the gin caused a vibration which affected plaintiff's house. There was other evidence of annoyance and inconvenience.

The following issues were submitted to the jury:

1. "Did the manner in which the defendant's gin was operated, its location and environment constitute a nuisance as alleged in the complaint?"

2. "If so, has the plaintiff been damaged by reason of said nuisance, as alleged in the complaint?"

3. "What damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?"

4. "Has the defendant continued to operate said cotton gin in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance from the date alleged up to the present time, as alleged in the complaint?"

From judgment upon the verdict the defendant appealed.

R. T Martin, of Farmville, and J. B. James, of Greenville, for appellant.

Harding & Lee, of Greenville, and John Hill Paylor, of Farmville, for appellee.

BROGDEN Justice.

What liability does the law impose upon the owner and operator of a private business with respect to the rights of others in the vicinity, and affected by such operation?

The trial judge instructed the jury in part as follows: "A private nuisance is an act done unaccompanied by an act of trespass, which causes a substantial prejudice to the hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of another; that is to its proper rights and to its enjoyment. The term nuisance in law, means annoyance, anything that works hardship inconvenience, or damage or which essentially interferes with the enjoyment of life or property. * * * It was the duty of defendant in putting up a gin there to put up a gin that would not be likely in its operations to injure his neighbors or to constitute a nuisance, and he testifies that that is what he did, and he and his witnesses testify that it has not constituted a nuisance. * * * So then you have a clear cut idea here as to whether or not the operation of the gin as constructed by the defendant has constituted a nuisance of...