Veazey v. City of Durham, No. 743.
| Docket Nº | No. 743. |
| Citation | 59 S.E.2d 429 |
| Case Date | February 03, 1950 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
59 S.E.2d 429
VEAZEY
v.
CITY OF DURHAM.
No. 743.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
February 3, 1950.
Claude V. Jones and Egbert L. Haywood, Durham, for petitioner.
DEVIN and DENNY, Justices, considering the petition to rehear.
The defendant filed petition to rehear on the ground that the judgment below, which was affirmed by this Court, awarded plaintiff permanent damages for injury to plaintiff's land caused by the discharge of sewage into streams flowing through it under the system of disposal then in use, and at same time required the City to remedy the conditions found to constitute a nuisance, and to prevent discharge of raw sewage into those streams, and to repair its pipe line from disposal plant to Neuse River.
After careful consideration of the matters set out in the petition, we are of opinion that there was no error in awarding permanent damages on the verdict of the jury, and that upon payment of such damages the defendant will acquire permanent right to operate its present sewage disposal plant on Ellerbe Creek so long as it is kept in proper repair, but we think the defendant has no just cause to complain of the provisions of the judgment prohibiting it from discharging raw and untreated sewage into the waters of Ellerbe Creek, and that these portions of the judgment are designed to prevent the infliction of additional injury on plaintiff's property in the future. In accord with the verdict the Court properly required the defendant to keep in repair the pipe line which it installed pursuant to the easement heretofore acquired.
We do not understand that the City of Durham has ever acquired an easement which gives it the right to empty untreated sewage from its North Side Disposal Plant into the open channel of Goose Creek or Ellerbe Creek. And certainly the City of Durham does not have the right to dump raw sewage into Neuse...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA17-74
...successive appeals from intermediate orders." Veazey v. Durham , 231 N.C. 357, 363, 57 S.E.2d 377, 382, reh'g denied , 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). When the State takes private property for a public use, it must pay just compensation. Sovereign immunity will not relieve it of th......
-
Jane Doe v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No. COA11–1466.
...determine the entire controversy.” Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (citation omitted), r'hrg denied,232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). As a general proposition, “there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments.” Travco Hotels v. Piedmon......
-
Wolfe v. Villines, No. COA04-467.
...N.C. 71, 73, 511 S.E.2d 2, 4 (1999)); accord Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362-63, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381-82, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). "A grant of partial summary judgment, because it does not completely dispose of the case, is an interlocutory order from which t......
-
State v. Fowler, No. COA08-652.
...it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy."), reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). "An appeal from such [an] order will be dismissed unless the order affects some substantial right and will work injury to the appe......
-
Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA17-74
...of successive appeals from intermediate orders." Veazey v. Durham , 231 N.C. 357, 363, 57 S.E.2d 377, 382, reh'g denied , 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). When the State takes private property for a public use, it must pay just compensation. Sovereign immunity will not relieve it of this......
-
Jane Doe v. Charlotte–Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., No. COA11–1466.
...determine the entire controversy.” Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (citation omitted), r'hrg denied,232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). As a general proposition, “there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments.” Travco Hotels v. Piedmon......
-
Wolfe v. Villines, No. COA04-467.
...N.C. 71, 73, 511 S.E.2d 2, 4 (1999)); accord Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362-63, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381-82, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). "A grant of partial summary judgment, because it does not completely dispose of the case, is an interlocutory order from which there ......
-
State v. Fowler, No. COA08-652.
...leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy."), reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). "An appeal from such [an] order will be dismissed unless the order affects some substantial right and will work injury to the appella......