Wharton v. Manufacturing Company

3 Citing cases

  1. Wiseman v. Construction Co.

    250 N.C. 521 (N.C. 1959)   Cited 6 times

    Phillips v. Chesson, supra, and cases cited; Ridley v. R. R., 118 N.C. 996, 24 S.E. 730. The factual situations considered by this Court in actions between private parties where the landowner's remedy in respect of damages was so restricted, may be classified as follows: (1) Actions between adjoining landowners, absent such public interest as may be involved in the continued operation of a manufacturing or similar plant, e.g., Phillips v. Chesson, supra, and Winchester v. Byers, 196 N.C. 383, 145 S.E. 774. Whether, in the cited cases, the plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief was not decided. Compare Wharton v. Manufacturing Co., 196 N.C. 719, 146 S.E. 867, where the nuisance was abated prior to trial. (2) Actions based on the defendant's operation of a manufacturing or similar plant in such manner as to pollute the air by the discharge of noxious and offensive fumes and gases, Webb v. Chemical Co., 170 N.C. 662, 87 S.E. 633; Morrow v. Mills, 181 N.C. 423, 107 S.E. 445; Brown v. Chemical Co., supra; S. c., 165 N.C. 421, 81 S.E. 463; or in such manner as to contaminate a stream by discharging waste materials therein, Clinard v. Kernersville, supra; Langley v. Hosiery Mills, supra; Webb v. Chemical Co., supra.

  2. Lightner v. Raleigh

    174 S.E. 272 (N.C. 1934)   Cited 15 times
    Applying the continuing wrong doctrine to a situation involving repeated discharges of sewage onto the plaintiffs' property

    Morrow v. Mills, 181 N.C. 423." Wharton v. Mfg. Co., 196 N.C. 719. In the instant case, the plaintiffs elected to pray for permanent damages, which they had the right to do as the property was attempted to be taken by defendants for a public purpose.

  3. Bradley v. Texaco, Inc.

    172 S.E.2d 87 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    " See also, Wharton v. Manufacturing Company, 196 N.C. 719, 146 S.E. 867. It is true that the trial judge instructed the jury that it could not assess permanent damages in this action; however, the trial judge not only allowed this testimony before the jury, but in his instructions he summarized the testimony.