Rentz v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1909
• Citation: 63 S.E. 743,82 S.C. 170
• Parties: RENTZ v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

63 S.E. 743

82 S.C. 170

RENTZ v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 1, 1909

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Bamberg County; Geo. E Prince, Judge.

Action by C. W. Rentz against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. F Carter, for appellant.

H. M Graham and John R. Bellinger, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

The first, second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the complaint are as follows:

"That at the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was, and still is, a corporation duly created according to law and capable of suing and being sued.

"That at the said times the plaintiff was, and still is, the owner in fee and lawfully possessed of a certain tract of land in the county and state aforesaid on the north side of defendant's right of way, and one-half mile east of the town of Bamberg.

"That there is upon said tract of land a certain pond of water, which for many years had been accustomed to flow through a certain ditch, and discharge its waters through a culvert, erected by the defendant, beyond the limits of the plaintiff's land.

"That about five years ago the defendant took out the culvert from its embankment standing upon its right of way, and, in place thereof, ran a pipe through the said embankment, which was utterly incapable of carrying off the water flowing from said pond, and was so small that it caused much of said water to be backed upon the said land of the plaintiff, overflowing the same, and causing great damage to the plaintiff's said land, his grass, corn, and other crops growing thereupon, and continued to maintain said pipe in said condition until about one year ago, when it took out said pipe, and put in another of larger capacity, but which, through the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, was placed so high that the water could not flow through it, except when it reached a great depth, and after it had been by reason of defendant's embankment forced back upon plaintiff's land, and seriously damaging the same, and his crops growing thereon."

The other paragraphs merely set forth the damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, "in that it does not allege that...