¶1concurring in result only: — I concur in the *891judgment of tbe court on the understanding that its opinion means that the condemnation proceedings, so far taken, are unconstitutional and therefore void, and that the plaintiff will have the right to maintain his action in the nature of trespass for-damages for any such unlawful entry upon his property.
132 N.C. 880
44 S.E 685
Vickers v. Durham.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 10, 1903
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1903-06-10
<p>1. NUISANCE — Injunction—Sewage— Writ.</p> <p>The discharge of sewage on the premises of a person is only a nuisance prima fade, and not per se, and whether an injunction should issue will depend upon the facts in the case.</p> <p>2. NUISANCE — Injunction.</p> <p>In an action for an injunction to restrain the defendant from discharging sewage on the premises of the plaintiff, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show that such action would result in a nuisance and in irreparable damage.</p> <p>3. EVIDENCE — Suffidency of Evidence — Injunction—Nuisance.</p> <p>The evidence in this case to restrain a city from discharging sewage on the premises of the plaintiff is not sufficient'to show a proba-ability that a nuisance would result therefrom.</p> <p>4. EMINENT DOMAIN- — Damages—Injunction.</p> <p>The fact that the method prescribed for assessing the damage caused by taking land for the construction of a sewage plant was illegal is not ground for restraining the construction of the plant.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1903-06-10
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1956
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →