Lachicotte v. Ford

• Decision Date: 13 September 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 916,58 S. C. 557
• Parties: LACHICOTTE et al. v. FORD.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

58 S. C. 557

36 S.E. 916

LACHICOTTE et al.

v.FORD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Sept. 13, 1900.

WATER AND WATER COURSES-FLOODING LAND—DAMAGES—COMPLAINT.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant owned a plantation lying on a certain river, and between such river and plaintiffs' plantation; that the banks of such river bounding on defendant's plantation, and the openings in the same, were solely within defendant's control; that in the spring of 1898, when plaintiffs were in possession of their plantation, defendant unlawfully, and with the malicious desire to injure plaintiffs, so operated the banks of such river and its canals as to cause the rice fields of plaintiffs' plantation to be overflowed, which fields plaintiffs had prepared for cultivation at much expense, and so maintained such nuisance as to prevent all cultivation of plaintiffs' plantation during the year 1898, and to render the same utterly useless; that, by reason of defendant's conduct, plaintiffs suffered damages, hereinbefore alleged, etc. Held, that the complaint states a cause of action, as it shows plaintiffs' right to the unobstructed use of their plantation, and the invasion of that right by defendant, in flooding such plantation by means of a water course.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Georgetown county; J. C. Klugh, Judge.

Action by St. Julien Lachicotte and A. A. Springs, co-partners under the firm name of S. M. Ward & Co., against Frederick W. Ford, for damages for flooding plaintiffs' plantation by means of a water course. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mitchell & Smith, for appellant.

Walter Hazard, Trenholm Rhett, Miller & Whaley, and Gilland & Pyatt, for respondents.

JONES, J. The circuit court overruled defendant's demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the defendant now seeks to reverse said order. The complaint attempted to state two causes of action, each of which was demurred to; but it will be sufficient for this appeal to state the allegations as to one of said causes, which are substantially as follows; (1) That plaintiffs were partners in carrying on the business of rice planting in Georgetown county. (2) That as such they were and are in possession of a tract of land in said county known as "Woodside." (3) That the defendant owned and was in possession of a tract of land in said county known as "Rice Hope, " lying on the waters of North Santee river, and between said river and said Woodside plantation. (4) "That the banks of said river, its creeks and canals bounding on Rice Hope plantation, and the trunks and openings in the same, were at the time mentioned hereinafter...