Masten v. Texas Co., 140 S.E. 89 (N.C. 1927). · Go Syfert
Search
Masten v. Texas Co., 140 S.E. 89 (N.C. 1927). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Beth Freeman v. Blue Ridge Paper Prods., Inc, 529 F. App'x 719 (6th Cir. 2013)
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931 1978 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
194 N.C. at 540 “more than a scintilla, and sufficient to be submitted to a jury.”2 citing cases2 citing courts quote it
140 S.E. at 90 cited at this page1 citing case
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arville Masten and Lillie Masten
v.
the Texas Co., H.C. Weavil and C. B. Yokeley.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov 16, 1927.
Published opinion
140 S.E. 89
1927 N.C. LEXIS 143
Wallace & Wells and W. H. Beckerdite for plaintiff. , Swink, Clement & Hutchins for defendant.
ClaeKSON.
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published
ClaeKSON, J.

This action was tried in the Forsyth County Court. After the plaintiffs had introduced their evidence, motion was made by defendant for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567, which was allowed. Plaintiffs excepted, assigned error and appealed to the Superior Court. The judgment of the Forsyth County Court was reversed and the action remanded to said court for trial on the facts. Defendant, Texas Company, excepted, assigned error and appealed to the Supreme Court. We think the evidence, though circumstantial, more than a scintilla, and sufficient to be submitted to a jury. Ledford v. Power Co., ante, p. 98. The probative force is for a jury to determine.

[*542] Tbe principle upon wbicb tbe action is bottomed is well stated in 27 E. C. L., part of section 137, p. 1223, as follows: “Tbe weight of-modern authority supports tbe rule that a person who, by permitting tbe pollution of bis own soil or tbe water thereunder, contaminates bis neighbor’s well or tbe streams under tbe neighbor’s land, from wbicb water is appropriated, is liable to tbe latter in damages, and in some cases tbe continuance of such pollution has been restrained by injunction.” Cl ark v. Lawrence., 59 N. C., p. 83; Rouse v. Kinston, 188 N. C., p. 1; Finger v. Spinning Co., 190 N. C., p. 74; Cook v. Mebane, 191 N. C., p. 1.

One may no more pollute a subterranean stream than a surface stream. A person has no right to befoul, corrupt or poison underground water so that wben it reaches bis neighbor’s land it will be unfit for use by either man or beast. Tbe same principle applies to noxious odors. This is good morals as well as good law. Tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is

Affirmed.