Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCanals and Drainage 1918-1930Canals & Drainage 1918 SUMMONS FOR RELIEF.—Judge.— Printed and for sale by Brady, The Printer, Statesville, N. C. County--9n the Superior Court “ RGAINSE SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. Hs, Beanel dp. Bess be found within your County, to, be and appear before the Judge of our Superior Court at a Court t6 Be held 5 the County of... he oS a _......at the Court House in . Monday Keo the the same being the... .% day of... which will be deposited in the offige Sf the Clerk of the Superior Court for said County, within the first three days of said Term, and let said Defendant..........take notice if. aD they fail to answer to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint. Hereof fail not, and of this summons make due retura. Given under my hand and seal of said Court, this oe sae In the Superior Court. in this action, in the s however, if the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant > uv a ae ° Seed ~ < A wy ‘4 ~ = a Qu GAINST of the Superior Court of 0. Returnable to... * North Carolina Superior Court Iredell County.. Jany Term 1918 Oscar M. Craven q -ve- a COMPLAINT . The Board of Drainage Commissioners of @ Upper Coddle Creek Darinage District. q The plaintiff complaining of the defendant for cause of action alleges and says : First. That the defendant is a corporation duly organized under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina and was and is so organized and existing for the puropse of draining the low lands lying along the waters of upper Coddle Creek in Iredell County ,State of North Carolina ,as shown up- on the official map of the defendant as filed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Iredell County. Second. That the plaintiff is a natural person and is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, the owner of cer- tain low lands lying within said district and subject to the supervision and control of the defendant in draining and improving plaintiff's said lands and other lande in said disetrict,and levying and collecting assessments against said lands for such improvmente as accrue thereto by reason of said drainage . Third. That on the 88nd day of Maroh 1916., the de- fendant entered into a contract for the outting of a canal throvgh the lands embraced in said district ,including those of the plaintiff, whoih contract provided among other things for the cutting of said canal to the width and depth as spe- cified in the plane and specifications of the enginewr making the survey of said stream and low lands ;that based upon said Plans and specifications for the cutting of said canal and dranining eaid low lands the proper legal authorities of rt a « \ / ee => defendant had wien’ risintits anda and had assessed against the same the eum of $304.30 whioh became and wag a lien upon the lande of plaintiff within said district ,and which plain tiff was required and did pay before eaid canal was cut through the lands of plaintiff and those lying below his eaid lands on eaid stream in eaid district . Fourth. That the defendants did not construct ,cut and excavate said canal according to the plans and specifications of the engineer and upon whioh it had assessed and collected assesment against plaintiffs lands,but failed and neglected to remove obstruction immediately below plaintiffs land in eaid canal ,and failed and neglected to cut said tama canal and excavate the same to the required depth so that same was obetructed and prevented the flow of the waters therein and not of sufficient depth and width to drain the low lands of plaintiff whereby said land remained wet and unfit for cultivation and unimproved to the great damage of plaintiff to wit: in the eum of Two Hundred and Four and 30/ 100 dol- A lare with interest thereon from the~5 day of Av _1916. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for the sum of $204.30 with interest thereon from eaid assay of Ad 1916., until paid and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. KE 6) PLL PE. Attorneys for plaintiff. Oscar M.Craven ,after being duly eworn deposee and says that the foregoing complaint is true of hie own knowledge , except as to those matters and thinge therein stated on information and belief and as to those he believes it to be true. (( av. Sworn to and subscribed Cacat nF oo before me thie the Jany 1918. Nerth Garelina,: In the Superier Geurt- Iredell Geunty:: As of January Term,1918. |; Osear M,@raven vs. : Dewmurrer, The Boara of Drainage Gormissioners ef Upper Coddle Greek Brainave Bistrict, The defendant demuss te the complaint in this case,and Bays: Firat. | It appears from the cemplaint tnat the defendant is a eorvoration erganixed and existing under the general drainare Jaws of Nerth Garelina,t+that said eorporatien is a euasi eorvoration and is riven corporate powers to execute the purposes fer which it was orrarized) . and is not liable for damares in‘ tne absence of statutery Erovexens giving a right ef action against it. Secenda. That the defendant,aeting in its corporate eapacity made a | centract with the contraeters fer the drainare ef the said Drainage | District and as the defandant was acting wholly and snlely within its authority as wumh prescribed by the laws of the State,and in the exercise of the diseretien vested in it as sueh cer poration, ceuld net be liable fer such damages as alleged in the complaint and which the plaintiff attempts te make it liable, Third . That the plaintiff nas failed tm set farth facts suffieient to eonstitute a eause of aation arainst this defendant,hecaune re eause ef actien will lie in such cases unless the plaintiff is autherized wy the autherity amder which the corporation was Ccreated,to bring such an actionjand under this said act ne autherity is given te sue under such circumstances as alleged in “~ thec eemplaint, es A At Attorney for Deten Filed Mareh 2,1918. OFFICE OF CLERK SUPERIOR COURT [REDELL COUNTY IREDELL SUPERIOR COURTS. 51H Monday Berore 181 Monday in MARCH. A 117 Monpay AFTER 18T MONDay In MARCH. J. A. HARTNESS, Crcerx 51H Monpay Berort 167 Monday in SEPTEMBER. 61H Mompay AFTER 167 Monvay in SEPTEMBER. STATESVILLE, N, C. No. 61 Oscar M.Craven Vs. Board of Commissioners of upper Coddle Creek Drainage Dristrict. The defendant demured to the plaintiffs complaint in writing, and coming on to be heard, and after hearing the arguments, the Court sustaines the demur and plaintiff excepts and appeals to the Supreme Court, notice of appeal waved ,appealed bond adjudged to be in the sum of $25.00, the summons, complaint and written demur constitute the appeal on appeal. Jas.L.Webb Judge Presiding. y North Carolina In the Superior Court Iredell County May Term,1918 Oscar M.Craven vs The Board of Drainage Commissioners I . Appeal Bond of Upper Cod*le Creek Dreinare District | Know all men by. these presents: That we,Oscar if.Craven, u , A and t k t Navi ré held and firmly bound ufto the defendant in the above en titled case in the sum of Fifty Dollers to be paid to the said defendant to which par:ment well and truly to be mede we ‘ind ourselves,our heirs,executors and administretors. ‘ointly andseverally, by these presents. Signed,sealed and delivered this 4th day of June 1918 The condition of this obligetion is such that whereas the said plaintiff sued the defendant for damages as set out in the complaint and the case eoming on to be heard upon the bomplaint of the pleintiff and upon demurrer filed by the defendant and whereas the Court sustained the demurrer of the defendant,and the plaintiff excepted and appealed to the Supreme Court.Now,tterefore,we,the undersigned acknovledge ourselves indebted to the defendant,inthe sum of Fifty Dol- lars to be void, however ,uopn the condtition that the plain- tiff shall pay all costs which may be ewerded against him on eccount of his ssid appeal to the Supreme Court,other- wise to be and remain in full force and effect. Vitness our hands and Seals »this the 4th day of June,1978. Liem -- = = « seal is - -Seal - Seal maxeth oath that he is worth over and wp & Marr above his homestead and personal property exemptions and liabilities the sum of ONF wes DOLXA wn ——, 2 LZ» Subscribed and sworn to before me Dee dey of June 1918 . ;o Notery Public My commission expire ~ NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT It is, therefore, considered and adjudged by the Court here, that the opinion of the Court, as delivered by the Honoratle.....f#.. ae Lb... Cree ee , Justice, be certified to-wit, the sum of ...: wKeed ye pesemoeucseens and execution issue therefor. A True Copy: Clerk of the Supreme Court GCscar li. Craven Vv fhe Board of Commissioners of Upper. ee ee eee ee Coddle Creek drainare district, Civil action heard upon demurrer to Complaint by Webb Judge at hiay Term 1918. Superior vourt of Iredell County. Zhe Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed tne action. ‘tlaintiff apperled. H. P. Grier, A. L. starr for plaintiff, zed V. Turlington for defendant. BROWN J. The complaint alleges in substance that plaintiff owns certain lands within the defendant drainage district, that in 1916 defendant "entered into a contract for the cutting of a Canal through the lands embraced in said district including those of plaintiff, which contract provided amonr other things for the cutting said canal to the width and depth as specified in the plans and specifications of the engineer making the survey of the streim and low lands; that based upon said plans and specifications for the cutting of the canal and draining said low lands the proper legal authorities of defendant had viewed plaintiff's laads and has assessed against the same the sum of 3204.30, which became and was @ lien upon the lands of plaintiff within said district, and which plaintiff was required and did pay before said canal was cut through the lands of plaintiff and those lying below his lands on said stream in said district", The Complaint further alleges that defendant did construct, cut and excavate said canal according to the plans and specifications of the engineer and upon which it had assessed and collected assessment against plaintiff's lands, but failed and neglected to remove obstruction immedi- ately below plaintiff's land in said canal, and failed and neglected to cut said canal and excavate the same to the required depth so that same was obstructed and prevented the flow of the waters therein, and not of sufficient depth and width to drain the low lands of plaintiff, whereby said land remained wet and unfit for cultivation and unimproved to the great damage of plaintiff, to wit: in the sum of two hundred and four and 30/100 doliars with interest thereon from the 25th day of November, 1916, The defendant demurs upon the ground that it is a Corporation createc by the state for drainage pmrposes and that upon the facts stated in the complaint the action cannot be maintained. A reading of the ccmpleint discloses that this is not un action for damages for negligent performance of duty against the individuals composing the Board of Commissioners, but an action against the Corpo- ration itself for g supposed breach of contract in constructing a canal in which plaintiff seeks to recover the money paid out under the contract and interest on it. This is an erroneous view of the relation existing. between plaintiff and defendant. Such relation was not contractual in its nature. The $204.30 was not paid in pursuance of a contract or agree- ment. It was an assessment levied by law upon the lands of plaintiff for the construction of a drainage canal running through the drainage district, the assessment is not based upon wn arreement to pay it or any contract to construct the canal in a certain way. It is based soley upon the cost of the work, the extent and value of the land and the benefits it would probably receive from this construction of the canal, The defendant has the power, and so far as the complaint discloses, employed a competent engineer who made all the plans and specifications for the construction of the work and under whose supervision the work was done. Under the Statute the Board of Commissioners have the power to correct and modify the details of the report of the engineer and viewers, IF IN THs1IR JULGseNT they can incresse the efficiency of the drainage plan and afford better drainage to the lands in the district without increasing the eatimated cost --- Chapt. 442, Sect. 21, Public Acts of 1909. The aeceptance of the work of tne contractors a5 a compliance ona their part with the contrsot was a judicial sot of the Board of Comuission- ers and cannot be questioned except for ?raud or collusion and then only to make the Commissioners personally and individueily liable. = +, he gs A rete cee oa Affirmed. Canals & Drainage 1918 SUMMONS FOR RELIEF.—Judge.—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, N. C. Nard US County—lIn the Superior Court. 0 uperior Court, at a Court to ry seapn re Court House in (7 We the. 4! . Mongay -.-Monday of hfe eee the same being the_.3_0 Sday of =. 191__, and answer the complaint, a copy of which will be deposited in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Coust for said County, within the first hts fail to answer to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the com- three days of said Term, and let said Defendant take notice if__ plaint. Hereof fail not, and of this summons make due returg. Given under my hand and seal of said Court, this_/7 . “tk? ite On VORP LYN CC OW OTMY : “AauA0}}Y 8, JYUBq wo-----2- +2288 - = ------------ (Seal.) ag eee ee eee ee ( ERI.) a ee ee eee Cen.) In the Superior Court. | . jo yg royiadng 24} Jo 04 qavarnyey ‘dUITIa AOI SNOWWNS > ~ = = Ss oS ' ' ! ; ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ! ' ' : ' ' ' ' Witness our hands and seals, this._______day of_____._-.-_-----------=.____--A. D, 191___- Sworn to and subscribed before me this.______.day of ____-_______________._____191____ < e a 3 6 < 0 : = of ° Z o ) tl] ~ < ~ 7] however, if the Plaintiff..._......___.__...__._..._..._____________ghall pay the Defendant____-- all such ~*~ > aa ----------------------------------- being sworn says he is worth the sum of two hundred dollars over and above his debts, liabilities and property exempt from executions. the Defendant-__-__ in this action, in the sum Noe cc cae ce oeectenenaaune=—_UJollata, to be void, cost as the Defendant__.___ may recover of the Plaintiff______ in this action. <4 Forth Carolina, In the Suverior Court- fredell @ounty. : As of July Term~1917. W.S.Brom 2 vey 3 &.B.Marris : The plaintiff complains and alleres: Ist. That the plaintiff and defendant are citizens and residenta of Tredell Gounty,Forth Garolina. 2nd.That during the vear 191F ,the plaintiff purchased and care in possession of the following described lands,to-wit: The lands formerly owned by Wood Woods in Iredell county,N.6. adjoining the , lands of $.B.Marris and others and through which there ran a branch whieh drained the lands of the plaintiff and other persons ahove him,which branch ran through the lands of ¢.R.Warris and emptied into Boddle Creek, Srd.That this branch from the edge of plaintiff's land to the creek flowed in a channel three and one half feet deep and six feet wide and this branch and channel furnished the only outlet for the drainage of the plaintiff's land aw’ for the water running Gown eaid branch, 4th.That said defendant obstructed said channel by placing cedar brush and rocks on top of said brush in the same at a point about | hinety stepea from plaintiff's lower line and further otstructed said | thannel by driving stakes in the channel and about teng steps below the line of tne plaintiff the said defendant further obstructed said channel by eutting three or four willow trees dow and allowing them to fall in the said channel. 5th. That this obstruction of th® said channel caused the same to fill up with sand and caused the water to run out of *+he banks and to overflow the meadow of this plaintiff in such way as to greatly damage this plaintiff,that the water is standing on this plaintiff's land andy the same has become water soaked and ccvered with sand until the land of this plairtiff is almost worthless. @th, That before the said ehannel? was obstructedd ar above set 7 « out this plaintiff was able +6 ha ‘ ‘arvest forty loads | s of Food hav <4 w each vear,which hay wae worth on an averupe of $5.00 per load, that this plaintiff has not been able to harvest over ten loads of hay since the said plaintiff obstructed gaid channel,which was during the year 1918,that tne plaintiff has heen depriwed each vear fer a period of four years of his said crops of hay as above atato?t and 16 still deprived thereof,to the damage of this plaintiff in the sur of $600.00. 7th, That during the vear 1915 a petition was filed for draining @oddle Greek and a drainare district vas established known as +he Upper Coddle freek Brainage Bisatricet,the lands of the defendant and this plaintiff were insluded ir the said district and the lands of this plaintiff were assessed for the nenefit to be obtained by this drainage,that tne said defendant well knowing that this assessment had been made against the plaintiff's land and in utter | disregard of this plaintiff's rights contimuied to pull brush and throw sand on the said brush in the said channel and after remnert from’bhis plaintiff and later after demard wade to either clear out the said channel or allow this plaintiff to clear thed same of | the obstructions placed therein by the said defendant,the said defendant refused to remove said obstructions or to allow any one | else to do so, Wherefore this plaintiff demands, ist. That he be awarded damares in tne sum of *800.00 because of the obafriction of said channel aa aforesaid= 2nd, That a mandatory injfuction tasue arainst the said defendant compelling him to remove the said obstruction from the said channel-8rd, That this plaintiff recover his cost and for sucti cther and further relief as he muy be entitle to receive in law and in equity. Y.S.Bromm being duly sworn deposes and sgavs thet bre is the plaintiff in t*e above entitled proceedings and that. he has read the foregoing complaint and that the same is true of his own knewiaad knowledge,except as to those things therein stated on information and belief and as to those he mone ah 1, re - \ @é ~¢ w Sworn to and subscribed before me this the 10th day of Oectober, 1917. LU Vectb2 J.P. Yt . JL. Bo [yee . phe WA [21/7 MAO Cn Bey CAL. - /- North Carolina In The Superior Court Iredell County. As of July Term 1917. W.S Brown ANSWER. vs y S.B.Harris i The defendant above named answering the com- ‘Pdaint in this action says: First. He admits the first paragraph of the complaint. Second. That he has no knoweldge or information whereof sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of the second paragraph of the complaint and therefore denies the Same , except he admits that a branch flowed through the lands of Wood Woods and this defendant and emptied into Coddell Creek . Thigd. That the third paragraph of the complaimt,and the facts as therein alleged,are untgeue and are denied. Fourth. That the fourth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. Fifth. That the fifth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. Sixth. That the sixth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. Seventh. That he admits that in 1915., Coddle Creek Drainage District was incorporated as alleged,and that the lands of this defendant was included in said District,but this defend— ant has no knowledge or information whereof sufficient to form a belief as to plaintiff's owning any lands in said District and therefore denies the ownership of any land in said District by plaintiff. That all other alllegations in said paragraph are = ® 3 i —_ untrue and are denied. For a further answer and defense,defendant says: First. That for a number of years prior to the year 1915., the channel of Coddle Creek became obstructed and filled with mud ’ sand and other d@bris,so much so that the branches and ditches that emptied into said creek were filled up ,causing the water to overflow and sog large bodies of adjacent land rendering same unfit for cultivation and greatly reducing its productive-— ness. That in the year 1915., Upper Coddle Creek Drainage District was orgainzed,including therein the lands of defendant and that then occupied by the plaintiff, and in 1916., said creck was dredged; That after said creek was dredged ,defendant in order to better drain his lands, and to protect them from overflow from water collecting on the lands above him ,» cut a ditch from the channel of the creek through his lands to the Wood Wools property line,and gave the plaintiff who was then cultivating said lands the right to drain into said ditch. Second. That after defendant cut the ditch as aforesaid the plaintiff carelessly and negligently failed and neglected to sonnet the draniage through the iam Wood Woods lands with that of the defendant but so carelessly and negligently acted in this behalf that the water,flowing over said lands , overflow and break ovdr the banks of the ditch on said lands amd flooding the defendants lands;that any damage plaintiff may have sustained ,if any , is and was due to his own want xmfxmaxs of care and not to any fault on the part of the de— fendant. Said carelessness and negligence on the part of the a. plaintiff is hereby pled in bar of any recovery in this action. For a further answer and defense to said action defendant alleges and says. First. That more than three years - 3 have elapsed Aneves, att > plaintiff's alleged cause of action arose’ and the bringing of this action and said lapse of time and the statute of limita- tion in bar thereof is hereby plead in bar of said action and any recovery therein. Wherefore having fully answered defendant demands that he go hereof without day and recover his costs of action and for such further relief a pao Just and Tee Attorney for defendant . SAS Mirr+2 being duly sworn deposes and says that the foregoing answer is true of his own knowldge ,emeept as to thos matters and things therein stated on information and belief ,and as to those he believes it to be true. \ — a Sworn to and subscribed {< CAnr7 before me this the _ 19th day of April 1918. North Carolina in the Superior Court Iredell County August Term 1918 W.S.Brown vs Judgment S.B.Harris This cause coming on to be heard before Judge B.F.Long and it appearing that the matters in controversy have been settled by S.8.Harris agreeing to open up a channel through his land to W.S.Brown's line and to give W.S.Brown a clear channel for the flow ot the water througn the said S.B.Harris' lands and further by the said S.B.Harris agreeing to pay all the court costs in this action except the witness fees for plaintiff's witnesses and the ofiicers tees for subpoenaing plaintii.i's witnesses,ant the plain-— tiff W.S.Brown azreein: to pay all his own witness fees and the officers costs for subpoenaing the same and by further agreeing to open the channel cugk by Harris to the plaintiff's line tnrough his own,Plaintiffs,land.Both parties to keep the channel open and free from obstructions on his respective land. it is therefore ordered and adjudged tnat S.B.:arris open @ channel at the place agreed upon and as now understood by plain- tiff and defendant through his land to the line of W.S.8rown and to keep same clear of obstructions,the said channel being of sufficient Size to carry the ordinary flow of the water in said channel and that said S.B.Harris pay all the court costs except fees of plaintiff's witnesses and tne officers costs for subpoenaing plaintiff's witnesses and that the said W.S.Brown is to conthnue said channel and open up same from his line through his land and keep said channél free from obstructions so as not to overflow defendants land below and that the said W.S.Brown pay his own witnesses fees and the officers costs for subpoenaing the plaintiff's witnesses. j 7 Lo. ] Judge Presiding. y fw fle Zr aly, pr Aeferlae e ey Bill of Costs—Civil—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Co. waht Original Summons, or oth€ | names therein. (\ No. Docket i Every copy of same Bond, including Justifigation . a ee eas .60 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.| Lg sol. 50 County. Order for enlarging time of pleading. . . . ae 25 oo Interlocutory Orders. ae one Attachment, Order in. . . ASG as .50 Lo ed RB wer Injunction Order, including Bond and Justificatiun. . . . 1.00]]- ’ ae Order of Arrest eee : Subpoena, each name Against Notifying Solicitor of Removal of Guardian . . . / Peontinuance. .. . . . jsf} Lyre Caveat to a will, entering and docketing. ( Issuing Commission. . . . Affidavit, including Jurat and Certificate Seal . * Judgment Against Notice, for each name over one in same paper . . Impaneling Jury Justification of Sureties, except as otherwise provided. Judgment final in term time.. Judgment final before Clerk... . Judgment in favor of Widow's Year's Support. . . . Docketing same “ Summons . . Indexing Judgment.. Filing Papers. . Postage, actual . . Transcript of Judgement. ..... . Execusiot Aohervif's Return. . . Appeal to Supreme Court, including Certificate and Seal . . Transcript to Supreme Court. . . . copy sheets, each. . County Tax, when jury: impaneled Referee’s Allowance Sheriff . . Constable. Magistrate Plaintiff's Witnesses. . . “6 “se Defendant’ [6[ “wusay (-apod ey) Aq paxty sy) “TIAD-S1S09 40 TH LANXIOd TAII Canals & Drainage 1919 SUMMONS FOR RELIEP.—Judge.—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, N. C. SUMMONS FOR RELIEF. the defendant. above named, if_s&K __be found within your County, to be and appear before the Judge of penor Court; at a Court td’ be held for “Wf ie of ...-at the Cottt House in our AB hhg = 000 the. 7M day the..#----Monday of - i ‘ 1917 __, and answer the complaint, a copy of which will be deposited in the office of the Cler the Superior Court for said County, within the first three days of said Term, and let said Defendant take notice it. __ wiley fail to answer.to the said complaint within that time, the plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the com- plat. Hereof fail dik end of this summons make due return. Givenan®Yny hapd.and seal of said Court, this.. ABI Gay of 2 -£o0.10}3¥. SPU f -+--(Seal.) A. “Cod --------Dollars, to be void, f_----.-.-_---A. D., 191_7_ Se eg |S) ys he is worth the sum of two hundred dollars oe 24 LL SP Cc In the Superior Court. ray AT” t paatoooy te , liabilities and property exempt from executions. the Defendant____ in this action, in the sum of___@ jo vinog Jouiedng ey} Fo eae COUNTY, ~~“for ‘uLIe,-- ~~~" ~~~ ~~ o> o[quunyoy Aq TIU 440i SNONWNS a .. being swo ' 1 1 ' ' ' ' ' ' ! | | 4 ' 1 ' ' ' : Sworn to and subscribed before me thinZD day of < z ! a] ! ° ! , < 0 : : é Pg Zz YC fxs 5 C i i] 4 < oy & ® and above his debts Witness our hands and seals, this AP day Of-.. We acknowledge ourselves bound unto however, if the Plaintiff@________._._..______________________shall pay the Defendant_:___. all such cost as the Defendant______ may recover of the Plaintiff______ in this action. North Carolina, ) In the Superior Vourt, Iredell County.) January Term, 1918. Je EB. Sigmon, J. MH. Rhinehardt, We Re. Rutledge, trading as Sirmon, ) ) Rhinehardt & Rutledge, COMPLAIPFT ) ) ) Upper Coddle Creek Drainage District. The plaintiffs conpluining of the cefendant allege and say: First: That J. E. Sigmon, J. lis Rhinehardt and W. x. Rutledge are partners treding and doing business under the firm name of Sigmon, Rhinehardt & Rutledge, and as such are ‘engaged in the operation of dredge boats for the cleaning of creeks and othew streams. Second: That the defendant is a corporation duly organized under the laws of North Carolina as provided by the several Statutes of the State for the draining of the low lands etc. Third: That on the 22nd day of March, 1916, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into a contract with the defendant, wherein they contracted and agreed with said defeniant to furnish all lanvor, machinery and tools to con- struct for the defendant a ditch for the improvement of Upper Coddle Creel, according to plans and specifications, a copy of which contract is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint. Fourth: Yhat the plaintiffs finished the construction af the ditch mentioned in s-id contract as per the terms ard an - specifications of the same anc within the time specified «le therein, for which the defendant agreed to pay to the plain- tiffs the sum of $15,800. for the dirt excavation and $2.00 per cubic yard for the rock excavation in excess of % cubic yards at any one place, which canrot be excavated without the use of dynanite. Fifth: That the work done by the plaintiffs for the defendant amounted to $16,292.00, and the defendant has paid the plaintiffs the sum of $16,088.70, leaving a balance due the plaintiffs of $204.20, with interest from May 22, 1917, until paid. Sixth: That the plaintiffs have demanded payment’ of the defendant, which it has refused and neglected to pay, and the same is still due and payable to the plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs demand judement for the sum of $204.30, with interest from May 2%, 1917, until paid, and the cost of action. ie a oe STSIHtTTTE Je H. Rhinehardt being duly sworn deposes and says, that the foreroing complaint is true of his own knowledge, except those matters and things stated on information and belief, and as to tnose matters he believes it to be true. Subscribed and sworn t this the i aay of November, 1917. db rw: by Ctr Berth Garelina, : Im the Superier Ceurt— | Iredell Gounty. : as efJanuary Term-1918. | J.KR.Sigmon,J.M.Rinenardt,V.R, t Rutledge-trading as Sigmon, Rineharadt : and Rutledge. Va. | Upper Geddile Greek Brainage Bistriet. The defendant answering the cemplaint eff the plaintifSs says: | First. ‘hat the First paragraph ef the cemplaint is admitted. | Second, That the second paragraph ef the complaint is adwitted, Third.This third wararreaph ef the canphhhnt is true and adwitted, Feurth. The defendant denies that the centraet was finished but admits that the terms of the contract as set. out in said feurth | paragraph of the complaint is true, Fifth] The defendant admits that the work done or alledged ta have been done amounted te £16298.00 and that the defendant has paid the plaintiffs the sur ef #14088.70 but denies that it ewes | the plaintiffs the sum ef #204.%0 or anv ether aveunt but alleges the truth te be as follews,viz. That the contraet was made hetween the plaintiffs and this defendant as above set eut and the plaintiffs ' filed with this defendant a eertified cheek er time ecotifieate of | deposit en the Bank at Stanley,N.6. in the sum ef $5000.00 te held as a bend for the proper perfermanes ef the said contrast. That semetine before the plaintiffs suit work en the centraet,they represented te this defendant that they were in need of this _ meney which was fepresented by the cestified cheek er time eertifieate ef deposit and this defendant allowed tnem te take the said eheek er eertificate ef depesit,atating at the time that the defendant was due these plaintiffs eertain monev and the defendant ! weuld be safe in helding the awmeunt se due instead ef retaining | the wbend,that befere settierent was wade between the wlaintiffs and defendant ,0O.M.@raven,ene of the land ewnersa in the said cistriet eauplained te the defendant that the work of construetien had net — = $204.30 alledped damares which he said he had suffered en aecount | | been done according to contract and made demand on the defendant fer | | of the mumm alledged inpreper perfermanee of the said contraet. The | defendant then netified these plaintiffs and sent cheek te tnew. fer the fall ameunt due them less the sun ef *904.70, hich was ! held in liau ef bend as aferesaid ,th-t later the said 0.M.6raven . breught suit arainst this defendant te reeever the said sum ef $204.30. Sixth. That the plaintiffs have made demand on this mekendant, fer the payment ef tne $204.50 as asked for in the sixth wararravh ef the cemplaint but this defendant denies that it ewes the | plaimtiffs the sum ef *204.f0 er anv ether aweunt but again alledges that it has retaimed the sum of #204.30 amg in lieu ef bend as aferesaid.That this defendant stands ready to pay the said sum ef $204.30 te such person as may be entitled to the name . Wherefore the defendant asks that(1) this aetien be retained on ' the deeket until the C.M.@raven eare has heen diswesed (7%) that this actien be then @iawissed ard that this defendant reeewver its eest and go witheut day ane fer sueh other and further relief as the defendant may be entitled te reseever, te beh In Werth 6arelina, / Iredell Seunty. | Jenn A.Graven being dulv sworn savas that he is ehairwan at the Beard of Commissioners of the upper Enddle freek Drainage Bistriet, 'that he has read the *erereing answer and that the same is true | except as te those things therein set eut whieh are stated on inferwatien and belief and as te.these he believes it te be true. | Swern te and subscribed bef we this the 270 th dav ef Fav, 191RF, om EAZ fhe SSF I GARI GF Bill of Costs—Ciwvil—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Co., Statesville, NC. Original Summons, or other original process, mceS Uy all naines therein. . -$ 1.00))-7 13 No. 9 Docket Every copy of same. . . eee eee 72 60H. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.| Cacactélvw, 7v¥ th’ « 50 O:der for enlarging time of pleading > € 25 Interlocutory Orders. canes (25 Ee Attachment, Order in. . . Soo une oe .50 Injunction Orde:, including Bond and Justification. . . - Order of Arrest. . Subpoena, each name Notifying Solicitor of Removal of Guardian . . . . Continuance . Caveat to a will, entering and docketing. Issuing Commission. Affidavit, anehiciny Jurat and Certificate =j : Seal. . : (ame @Motion, Entry and Recard of LE. Aint. Notice.. Notice, for each name over one in same paper . . Impaneling Jury Justification of Sureties, except as otherwise provided Judgment final in term Sime Judgment final before Clerk... . 2. ~ - Judgment in favor of Widow's Year's Support. . . . Docketing same Docketing ex parte Proceedengs . . . Ht Judgement Summons Indexing Judgment. . Filing Papers. . Postage, actual . . Transcript of Judgement. Executron-ef Sherriff’s Retum . . . Appeal to Supreme Court, including Certificate and Seal . . Transcript to Supreme Court. . . . copy sheets, each. . County Tax, when jury impaneled. . . Referee's Allowance ,..... - “ws . Ve Constable. Magistrate . Plaintiff's Witnesses. . . se “se “e oe Defendant’ fu 1 — ory a LUGIIE Bere’ (pod aya Aq paxiy sy) *TIAD--S1S0) 40 Td \LIN9O TIAII FN | Canals & Drainage 1929 | STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT | IREDELL COUNTY ide We. H. Johnson vs C OMPLAINT Town of Mooresville, a municipal (corporation, and the hiooresville | Cotton Mill Company, a corporation { ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants for ' eauge of action, alleges and says: | l. That the plaintiff is a resident and citizen of Iredell County, State of North Carolina, and is the owner of and in possession of a tract of land containing about 298 acres, | situate, lying and being on both sides of Little Rocky River, (a gammall branch), and near the town of Mooresville. | 2. That the defendant, Town of Mooresville, is a) aanielvad corporation, duly created, organized and exisiting under | ‘the laws of the State of North Carolina, and as such has estab- ! | lished and is now and has been for more than three years, last ‘past Operated a system of sewerage having an outlet into said | | Little Rocky River above the premises of said plaintiff. 36 That the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mill | Company, is a private corporation, duly organized and existing Une and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Carolina, \With ite principal office and place of business in the Town of | Mooresville, N. C., and as such operates a cotton mill for the | Weaving of cloth, etc. and in connection therewith operates a dye | poom for the dyeing of clothe and other materials that might be | manufactured by it and that after using of the dyes as aforesaid, it being of no further use to the defendant, it is emptied into ltattre Rocky River above vlaintiff's property and allowed to flow lin the natural course of said stream onto, by and through | ois plaintiff's property. ' } " ! 4. That the sewerage and disposal as emptied into! 'Little Rocky River by the Town of Mooresville is not pweoperly i treated so as to render it harmless to the plaintiff and to allow pam to use it for its natural purposes and for the purposes that lat was heretofore used by plaintiff, and his predecessors in title, before being confiscated to and for the use of this defendant. 5, That the dyes of the Mooresville Cotton Mill , | Company as heretofore mentioned are not properly treated so as to ts neuter it harmless to the plaintiff, thereby causing him as a lower ‘riparian land owner not to enjoy the reasonable use of the waters : ‘in its natural state, unpolluted. | 6. That as a direct and proximate cause of the ‘unreasonable use of. the waters, by the combine acts, by reason of the discharge of said effluences into said stream by said defendants ‘the waters of said stream have ever since continued to be corrupted lend polluted, causing the same to emit noxious and offensive fumes vand odors, and to become highly discolored end of foul and unsightly appearance: and of lothsome and distasteful quality, to the annoy- | jance, inconvenience and injury of the plaintiff in the use and occu- ipanoy of said premises, destructive to fish therein and unwholesome| for cattle, horses, swine, fowls and other domestic animals; this ‘causing substantial and special injury to the plaintiff in his rights in the enjoyment, uses and benefit of the water of said | ‘stream in its natural purity and causing the air to be filled with | lnoxious, unwholesome and offensive odors and fumes arising there- | \from to the great damage of the plaintiff in the quiet enjoyment of ‘hig premises and to the great damage of the public generally. | 7. ‘That the dwelling end lands of the plaintiff jhave been made undesirable as residences on account af foul odors { ‘emitting from said polluted stream. | 8. That said condition, as heretofore alleged ana caused by the defendants, have become a private and public ‘nusiance, both to the plaintiff owning property along and near ‘said stream and to the public generally, who may have occasion to pass in close proximity to said stream; said nusiance being of a leeneinatne nature, and of a permanent end continuous character, bee! existed for a greater period than three years, and has constantly | increased in quantity and of ensiveness since the establishment of | the sewer system for the Town of Mooresville and the erection of the dye plant for the Mooresville Cotton Mill Company, 9. That by reason of the uses and things aforesaid, Yhe defendants have taken and appropriated to their own use the rouarty of plaintiff without compensation. 10. That by reason of the separate and combined and unlawful acts of the defendants, as aforesaid, the plaintiff has sustained special and substantial injuries of a permanent and con- | tinued kind in the use and occupanoy of his said land to this great damage in the sum of $2,600.00. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that he hase and recover from the defendants, or either of them, the said sum of $2,500.00, and the costs of this action in his behalf expended, and that he be, granted such other and further relief as may be just and proper;. Attorneys NORTH CAROLINA IREDELL COUNTY J. W. H. Johnson, being duly sworn, deposes and i says: That he has read the foregoing complaint, and that the _facts set forth therein are true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters and things stated therein upon information and belief, and as to those he telieges it to be true. pf WN fiedadie er Subscribed and sworn to before me, this the / 9 day of NORTH CAROLINA, Il! THE SUPERIOR COURT. IREDELL COUNTY, J. W. H. Johnston -VvVs- Town of Mooresville, & municipal corporation, and Mooresville Cotton Millis, a corporation. The defendants answering the complaint in the above entitled action say:- ale Defendants admit that plaintiff is a resident and citisen of Iredell County, North Carolina. All other allegations of the first paragravh of the complaint are untrue and are denied. -2— That the second paragraph of the complaint is admitted. In further answering ssid paragraph, defendants allege; that the Town of Mooresville’s sewerage disposal system was established in the exercise of its governmental functions and in accordance with the requirements of the health authorities of North Carolina, agreebaly to the provisions of law, and has been in operation since its completion on the day of July, 1914. -3- The third paragraph of the comlaint is substantially correct and is, therefore, not denied. wha The fourth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied, The truth tn relation to the matters and things therein referred to, the defendants allege are correctly set forth in defendant's further answer. =he The fifth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied, The truth in relation to the matters and things therein referred to, the defendants allege are correctly set forth in defendant's further answer, =6= That the sixth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. The truth in relation to the matters and things therein referred to, the defendants allege are correctly set forth in defendant's further answer. ae ae The seventh paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. aos Answering the eighth paragraph of the complaint defendants allege that the defendant, Llooresville Cotton Mill, has since the year 1893 continuously emptied its waste water into a tributary of Little Rocky hiver some distance above the premises occupied by the plaintiff and said waste water hes since the year 1893 continuously and winterruptedly flowed into Little Rocky River and through and over the lands occupied by the plaintiff; that the defendant, Town of lhooresville, has since the. ___—s day of duly, 1914 continuously and uninterruptedly emptted the water from its sewerage disposal plant into a tributary of Little Rocky River some distance above the premises occupied by plaintiff and said water has since said _—- day :- of July, 1914 continuously and uninterrupt- edly flowed into Little Rocky River through and acrosg the premises Occupied by the plaintiff and that the use of Little Rocky River through and across the premises occupied by the plaintiff as an outlet of the waste water from the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mill's plant and the water from the sewerage disposal plant fron the Town of Mooresville has been continuovs, open, adverse and uninterrupted by each defendant since said repsective dates. All allegations of the eighth paragraph of the complaint in conflict with the above allegations are untrue and are denied. «p= Answering the ninth paragraph of the complaint defendants allege that. defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mill, has emptied the waste water from ite plant into a tributary of Little Rocky HKiver and has continuously, uninterruptedly, openly and adversely used the channel of Little kooky River through and across the premises occupied by the plaintiff as an outlet for said waste water from its plant since the year 1893; that. the | ot - - defendant, Town of Mooresville, has emptied the water from its sewerage disposal plant into a tributary of Little Rocky River and has continuously, uninterruptedly, openly and adversely used the channel of Little Rocky River through and across the premises occupied by the plaintiff as an outlet for the water from its sewerage disposal plant from the day of July, 1914 and that for this use and purpose and to this extent from said respective dates each of said defendants have taken and appropriated to its ew use the snennepict i ataeene ocr) xiver HRrouen and across the lands eccupied by the plaintiff. It is admitted that neither of the | defendants paid the plaintiff anything for so adversely, openly, continuous~ ly and uninterruptedly taking and approprieting said premises; thet all allegations of the ninth paragraph of the complaint inconsistent with the ©: above allegations are untrue and are denied. -10- The tenth paragraph of the complaint is untrue and is denied. For a further answer and defense to plaintiff's alleged cause of ' action defendants allege and say: im }— The defendant, Mooresville Cotton kill, is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, a domestic corporation created, existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of North Yaroline with its principal office and place of business in Mooresville, N.C. engaged in the cotton manufacturing business. That on the day of , 1893, defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mill, caused the waste water from its premises to be conveyed ino ae a tributary of Little Rocky River and to flow thence openly, continuously, uninterruptedly and adversely through the channel of Little Rocky River across the premises occupied by plaintiff. Se That the defendant, Town of Mooresville, is and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, a municipal corporation duly created, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of North Garolina, and on the. _—s day ~ of July, 1914 aaid defendant, in the ‘exercise of its governmental functions and in accordance with the - requirements of law and the health authorities of the State of North Carolina, installed, equipped and completed a sewerage disposal plant and ever since said time has maintained and operated said sewerage disposal plant in accordance with the requirements of the health authorities of the State of liorth Carolina and the provisions of law appertaining thereto for disinfecting, cleansing and treating the sewer- age from its said plant, and has ever since said date properly disinfect- ed and treated said sewerage before discharging same. a That upon the completion and installation of said sewerage disposal plant as aforessid and after disinfecting and treating the sewerage as aforesaid, defendant, Town of Mooresville, caused the water from its sewerage disposal plant to be emptied into a tributary of Little Rocky xiver thence to flow into Little Kocky River and through and across the premises occupied by the plaintiff and mm ever since the completion of ssid sewerage disnosal system said defendant has openly, adversely, continuously and uninterrupvtedly caused the water from its said sewerage disposal system to flow through and across the wremises occupied by the plaintiff. -5= That as to the deferidant, The Mooresville Cotton Hill, plaintiff's alleged caused of action, if any, arose and accrued on the day of , 1893 and that the summons in this action was not issued until August 25, 1927; that more than three years and more than ten years and more than twenty years have elapsed since plaintiff's alleged cause of agtion arose and accrued and the commencement of this action and said lapse of time and three years statute of limitation and the ten years statute of limitation, and the presumption of a grant, by reason of the open, continuous, uninterrupted and adverse use of the premises occupied by plaintiff as above alleged for twenty years since said cause of action arose and accrued and the commencement of this action,.are each hereby plead in bar of plaintiff's alleged cause of action or any recovery thereon as against the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mill. o6= That plaintiff did not within two years after the maturity of his alleged claim vresent seme to the liayor or any other official of the defendant, Town of Mooresville, and his failure to present. nis said alleged claim within said time to the proper authorities of the Town of looresville is hereby plead in bar of any recovery thereon as to the defendant, Town of Mooresville. =a That as to the defendant, Town of Mooresville, plaintiff's alleged cause of action, if sny, arose and accrued on the day of July, 19124 and that the summons in this action was not i until the 25th day of August, 1927 and that more than three years and more than ten years have elapsed since plaintiff's alleged cause of action arose and accrued and the commencement of this action and said lapse of time and the three years statute of limitation and the ten years statute of limitation are hereby plead in bar of plaintiff's recovery on his alleged ectien against the defendant, Town of Mooresville. WHEREFORE, having fully answered the defendants demind that pleintiff take nothing by reason of his writ and that each defendant go hereof without day. == That any issue submitted as to damage be 30 drawn as to present and submit the question of permanent damage, if any. a That each defendant recover of the plaintiff its costs of action in this behalf exrended and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. Ne pr (ran for actual 8. North Carolina, Iredell County. C.E. ticNeely being duly sworn denoses &nd says that he is the Mayor of the Town of Mooresville, N.C. and George C. Goodman being duly sworn deposes and says that he is the Secretary and Treasurer of the { Mooresville Cotton Mills, and each for himself says that he has read the foregoing answer, that the same as to each defendant is true of his own knowledge except as to those matters and things therein set out on information and belief and as to those he believes it to be true. Sworn to and subscribed before me, vine Gt aay of May, 1929. otary Public, My commission expires: BL i929 CIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of aa, v OIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for aale by HYaay Printing Company, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of SL Cit ly" County—GREETING: lhe You arE HEREB MMANDED To SUMMON KB Lox ao personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be held for our said county at the Court House in Statesville, North Carolina, on ee mee day of Aor. Soe a ees wee 192_7.., then and Cler# Supenor Court for Iredell County. Fee due D L McKay, D.S. 50¢ Telephone méssage.-eeee 25¢ Total... 75¢ CIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of _- Wot. —— ee County-GREETING: C7 Mit this the _/__.».-day of _- Clerk Superior Court for Iredell County. Jew OU a Bo a sherit Aone f | Fee od SO# poid Sheriff ‘fake County - CIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA > You ARE HEREBY ep TO SUMMON . oka Aw) © 74 © to appear before the Judge of’ Superior Court, a th next Court to be held/for our ‘said county at be’ ky Court House in Statesville, North Carolina, on the-f- +> ~e-day of Glee this the 1 ay of Nhorr - ee _---192- 7 < Clerk Superior Court for Iredell County. C G Ao Cntr ; Pole Ie OIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed snd for sale by Brady Printing Oompany, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of County—GREETI C. A. Goodman You art Heresy COMMANDED TO SUMMON wf Dyer WE Cravoavl Court House in Statesville, North Carolina, on the--L&tNday of -.Neyenber 4 there to testify and the truth to say in behalf of Plaintiff eee eee eae e Sree ene dae on enmwmnalils us Sh iC “ , wontwedeet Ob Arne: Won by ow wwe oe ‘ geht Ss, ee ; Defendent'g.-. And this you shall im no wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by law. Wrens. .Yohn J. ¥1hoLand this the... c«day of MOWemRox Clerk Superior Court for Iredell County. Mooresville Cotton Mills Defendant_ 8 _ SUBPOENA- -Civil, OIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Oompany, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of Prdrs _.-County—GREETING: You are Heresy COMMANDED TO SUMMON tas pan personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be held for our said county at the Court House in Statesville, North Carolina, on the! Dh aay of _ Va. 192.4__, then and PS Merle, (0 Cece fh S fallen, | | 1 necer? §6 © WT Aah plenty OIVIL sono eee and for sale by Brady Printing Oompany, Statesville, North Carolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA To the Sheriff of 1redell County—GREETING: Clerk of our said Court, at office in Statesville, N. C. , Superior Court for Iredell Courtty. Mr 54 Chrieten Corry and bw Ula hy -Sfaredarn 22, OIVIL SUBPOENA—Printed and for sale by Brady Printing Company, Statesville, North Osrolina. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA personally to appear before the Judge of Superior Court, at the next Court to be held for our said county at the Court House in Statesville, North Carolina, on the-_L2%Dday of __November 1929___, then and Defendant... And this you shall im no Wise omit, under the penalty prescribed by’ law. WrrnEss’ _John Le Milhollend Clerk of our said Court, at office jn Statesville, N. C. this the....---.day of ---Navember Mooresville Cotton Mills. Defendan®__- SUBPOENA- -Civil, ie SES eit NEE, Kt, bteetc, prvge NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, {redell County. November term, 1929, J. W. H. Johnson, Plaintiff, vs. Mooresville Cotton Mills, a Corporation, and the Town of Mooresville, a Municipal Cor- poration, Defendants. ) ) } ISSUES. ) ) ) 1. Has the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, been in the open, adverse, visible and continuous use of the channel of Little Rocky River through the lands of the plaintiff for more than 20 years before the commencement of this action for the disposal of waste dye waters from its factory, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: 2. Has the defnadant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, caused the waste waters from its plant, including the dye waters, to flow contimously through the channel of Little Rocky River across the lands of the plaintiff for more than ten ~ years before the commencement of this action, as alleged in the answer? Answer: 5. Has the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, caused the waste waters from its plant, including the dye waters, to flow continuously through the chamel of Little Rokky River across the lands 6 the plaintiff for more than three years before the commencement of this action, as al- leged in the answer? Answer: @. Has the defendant, Town of Mooresville, caysed the sewerage from its disposal plant to flow continuously through the channel of Little Rocky River across the lands of the plaintiff for more than ten years before the commencement of this action, as alleged in the answer? Answer: 5. Has the defendant, Town of Mooresville, caused the sewerage from its disposal plant to flow continuously through the channel of Little Rocky River across the lands of the plaintiff for more than three years before the commence- ment of this action, as alleged in the answer?. Answer: 6. Did the plaintiff present his alleged claim against the Town of Mooresville to the Mayor or other official of said Town within two years from the bringing of this action? Answer: 7. What damage, incldding present, past and prospective. damages, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants, if any? Answer: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF IREDELL. NOVEMBER TERM, 1929. J. W. H. Johnson, Plaintiff, V8. Mooresville Cotton Mills, a Corporation, and the Town of Mooresville, a Municipal Cor- poration, ) ) ISSUES. ) ) ) ) Defendants. 1. Has the plaintiff's land been damaged by the pollution of the stream running through his farm by the defendants. as alleged in the complaint? Answer: e 2. If sp,what permanent damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, IREDELL COUNTY. NOVEMBER TERM, 1929. J. W. H. Johnson, vs. JUDGMENT, Mooresville Cotton Mills, a Corporation, and the Town of Mooresville, a Municipal Cor- poration. ee De ee ee eee ee This cause coming on to be heard, and being heard at this term of the court before His Honor, A. M. Stack, and a jury, and the Court having submitted to the jury the following issues, which the jury answered as follows: 1. Has the plaintiff 8 land been damaged by the pollution of the sfream running through his farm by the defendants, as alleged in the complai nt? Answer: "No". 2. If #@, what permanent damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants? Answer: IT IS THEREFORE, upon motion of Messrs. Z. V. Tur- lington and H. P. Grier, Attornéys for the defendants, ensti ered and adjudged by the Curt that the plaintiff take nothing of the defendants and the defendants go hereof without day and recover their cost of the action to be taxed by the Clerk of this Court, Judge Presiding. SSE fe pet hs tra hr May Sr 165/927, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF IREDELL. NOVEMBER TERM, 1929 J. We He Johnson -v3a- JUDGMENT Town of Mooresville, a Municipal Corporation, and Mooresville Cotton Mills Company, a corporation. | This cause coming on to be heard at this term of Court before His Honor, A. M. Stack, Judge Presiding, and it appearing to the Court that the plaintiff and defendants have compromised and settled all matters in controversy between them arising on the pleadings, and that it has been agreed that the defendant, Town of Mooresville, its successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual right-of-way and easement to cause the sewage and soil from its sewerage disposal plant to flow into Little Rocky River, and thence through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, as the said Little Rocky River now flows, or may hereafter flow, over, through, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, and may from time to time increase the flow thereof as its sewerage system may be extended, enlarged or improved to meet the requirements of the increase in population and use of its sewerage and water system, but the offensive and deliterious matter contained in any given quantity, or unit, of sewage and soil hereafter flowing from said sewerage plant shall not be greater than is nowpresent in any such given quantity, or unit,,of sewage and soil discharged from said plant, and that the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, its successors and assigns, shall have a perpetual right-of-way and easement to Cause the waste water and dyes from its manufacturing plant to flow into Little Rocky River, and thence through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff as the said Little Rocky River now flows, or may hereafter flow, through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, and may increaee the flow of the waste water and dyes from time to time as its business may require, but the offensive and deliterious matter contained in any given quantity, or unit, of waste water and dyes hereafter flowing from said manufacturing plant shall not be greater than is now present in any such given quantity,or unit, of waste water and dyes hereafter flowing from said manufacturing plant, and that the def:ndants are to pay the plaintiff the sum of $596.00, as full compensation for said right- of-way and easement, and in full of all past, present and future damage that the plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, have sustained, or mayhereafter sustain, by reason of the defendant, Town of Mooresville, its successors and assigns, causing and hereafter causéng the sewage and soil from its sewerage disposal plant to flow through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, and by reason of the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, its successors and assigns, causing and hereafter causing the waste water and dyes from its manufacturing plant to flow through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff: IT IS, THEREFORE, considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that the Town of Mooresville shall have a perpetual right-of-way and easement to cause the sewage and soil from its sewerage disposal plant to flow into Little Rocky River, and thence through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, and may from time to time increase the flow thereof as its sewerage system may be extended, enlarged or improved to meet the requirements of the increase in population and use of its sewerage and water system, but the offensive and deliterious matter sentained in any given quantity, or unit, of sewage and soil hereafter flowing from said plant shall not be greater than is now present in any such given quantity, or unit, of sewage and soil discharged from said plant, and that the Mooresville Cotton Mills, shall have a perpetual right of way and easement to cause the waste water and dyes from its manufacturing plant to flow into Little Rocky River, and thence through; over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, as said Little Rocky River now flows, or may hereafter flow, through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, and may increase the flow of waste water and dyes from time to time as its business may require, but the offensive and deliterious matter contained in any given quantity, or unit, of waste water and dyes hereafter flowing from said manufacturing plant shall not be greater than is now present in any such given quantity, or unit, of waste water and dyes discharged from said plant. It is further eonsidered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff recover of the defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of $596.00, as full and complete compensation and settlement for rights granted defendants, and in full satisfaction of all damage, past, present and future, that plaintiff, his heirs or assigns, has sustained, ormay hereafter sustain, by reason of the defendant, Town Of Mooresville, its successors or assigns, causing and hereafter causing the sewage and soil from its sewerage disposal plant to flow through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, agreeable to the terms of this judgment, and by reason of the defendant, Mooresville Cotton Mills, its successors or assigns, causing or hereafter causing. the waste water and dyes from its manufacturing plant to flow. through, over, across and on the lands of the plaintiff, agreeable to the terms of this judgment, and that the plaintirr recover of the defendants, jointly and severally, the costs of this action, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court. This judgment not to draw interest if paid on or before the let day of January, 1930; otherwise, to draw intereat m the first of this term of court. 44. vaio ear ore en courte pofpant Hite toee Judge Presiding Attorney for Piaintiff. Attorney pee oe Canals and Drainage Voting Records for Commisioners 1929 Hue KO I ay- Mh tert Lh fro a Aare - aad Dopey took. Sarr hap tC. an oN i IN ACCOUNT WITH J. H. SHUFORD DEALER IN General Merchandise and Produce fa 7 e >< Z Dp rd e Lb L400 | far t xan EEK 236, Clow Sor Cnn) fe taregs et nipdFnah te tort aN on W Q Heaee: Vinedede fell ae 8398720 Qe Boba tor Canals & Drainage 1930 North Carolina, In the Superior Court. Iredell County. Before the Clerk IN THE MATTER OF LITTLE ORDER OF AN ELECTIONS OF ROCKY CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT. COM’ ISSIONERS. This cause coming on to be heard, and being heard, and it appearing, to the court that there is a vacancy in Commissicner of said District and that it is necessary for an election to be heid in said District for Drainage Commsissioners, the court, after due consideration | hereby orders that an election be held at W. &. Robertson's store in Olin Township, Iredell County, North Carolina on the 25th day of January 19350, for the election of Drainage Commissioners for Little Rocky Creek Drainage District, and that each individual land owner in said District shall be entitled to cast the number of votes equalling the number of acres of land owned by him in the said District, and each suc~ land owner may vote for the names of three mmmmixximmgrx persons for Commissioners. The court further appoints W. L. Robertson, T. A. eon ‘and S. R. Jurney, Judges of this election, and the said Judges shall, on the dante above named, appear at the voting place herrtofore designated, and after being duly sworn, shall open the polls atc P. M and shall keep the polls open until 4 P. M. for the voters and shall furnish a balotv pox or some receptcale fcr the reception$ of ballots, and shall t{mmediately upon closing the poles canvass the votes. They shall also make a report to the court of the results of said electionas is provided by law. It is further ordered that a copy of this order be posted at the Court House Door of Iredell County, Statesville, N. C. and in three conspicuous places within the said District at least ten days prior to said election, This the 6th day of January 1950. Gols MICA Oba od / DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND RECORDS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY This is to certify that the micrographics appearing on this film are true and accurate reproductions of records originated during the normal course of business by the Iredell County and consist of _. Miscellaneous Records No Date, 1808-1949 The records begin with C.2 oY, GQb. C3 : Marcle 22a “) Be tlrep, NO Cac and end with C. ROSY, § 38. OY, Lannle v Mane be. $30 It is further certified that the above records were microfilmed in conformity with the provisions of the General Statutes of North Carolina, chapter 8-45.1 and 8-45.4, "Uniform Photographic Copies of Business and Public Records as Evidence Act", that the microphotography processes accurately reproduce the records so microfilmed; that the film forms a durable medium for reproducing the original, if necessary; and that the film used conforms to American National Standards Institute, Photographic Films-Specifications for Safety Film, ANSI IT9.6-1996 and American National Standards Institute, maging Media (Film)-Silver Gelatin Type-Specifications for Stability, ANSI / NAPM IT9. 1-1996. This is further to certify that the microphotography processes were accomplished by the undersigned on the date and at the reduction ratio indicated below. Date filming of this reel began O -7¥- 73 Reduction Ratio VATIOUS Date filming of this reel ended S- 0-73 ohh hux V0 wt aXeo Microfilm Camera Operator