From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay Co. v. Clay Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1932
164 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1932)

Summary

In Harris, the plaintiff entered into a lease with the defendant for mining rights to lands located by a creek in Mitchell County, then subsequently filed suit in Jackson County, its principal place of business, to recover breach of contract and tort damages after the defendant set up its own mining operation two miles upstream from the plaintiff's plant and polluted the creek so severely the plaintiff was forced to shut its plant down. 203 N.C. at 13, 165 S.E.2d at 342.

Summary of this case from Antiquity, LLC v. Electricities of N.C., Inc.

Opinion

(Filed 15 June, 1932.)

Venue A c — Cause of action in this case held transitory, and motion for change of venue as a matter of right was properly denied.

An action for damages caused by the pollution of a stream resulting in forcing the plaintiff to shut down his clay mining plant lower down along the stream is transitory, and where the plaintiff brings suit in the county in which its principal office is located, the defendant's motion for a change of venue to the county wherein the land is situate, made as a matter of right, is properly refused. C. S., 463.

APPEAL by defendants from Moore, J., at Chambers, Asheville, 21 January, 1932. From JACKSON.

E. P. Stillwell, Alley Alley, McBee McBee, Dan K. Moore and Edwards Leatherwood for plaintiff.

Berry Green, C. C. Buchanan, Morgan Gardner and Carter Carter for defendants.


Civil action to recover damages for breach of contract and for tort.

On 23 February, 1924, the plaintiff, a Jackson County corporation, leased from the individual defendants certain mining rights in lands located in Mitchell County.

Immediately following, the plaintiff took possession of said lands, installed equipment and started the operation of its mining plant.

It is alleged that sometime thereafter, the defendants erected a similar plant about two miles above plaintiff's location, and has so polluted the waters of Big Bear Creek as to force the plaintiff to shut down its plant.

This action for damages was instituted in Jackson County, the county of plaintiff's principal place of business, on 20 November, 1931. In apt time, the defendants lodged a motion for change of venue to Mitchell County as a matter of right. Motion overruled, and defendants appeal.


The case turns on whether the action is local or transitory in its nature. If local, the defendants are entitled to have the cause moved to Mitchell County for trial as a matter of right. C. S., 463. If transitory, the motion for change of venue was properly overruled. Causey v. Morris, 195 N.C. 532, 142 S.E. 783.

The action is for the recovery of damages and appears to be a transitory one. It sounds in neither ejectment nor replevin; nor is it an action for injury to real property, such as contemplated by the statute above cited. Eames v. Armstrong, 136 N.C. 392, 48 S.E. 769; McIntosh, N.C. Practice Procedure, 258.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Clay Co. v. Clay Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1932
164 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1932)

In Harris, the plaintiff entered into a lease with the defendant for mining rights to lands located by a creek in Mitchell County, then subsequently filed suit in Jackson County, its principal place of business, to recover breach of contract and tort damages after the defendant set up its own mining operation two miles upstream from the plaintiff's plant and polluted the creek so severely the plaintiff was forced to shut its plant down. 203 N.C. at 13, 165 S.E.2d at 342.

Summary of this case from Antiquity, LLC v. Electricities of N.C., Inc.
Case details for

Clay Co. v. Clay Co.

Case Details

Full title:THE HARRIS CLAY COMPANY v. CAROLINA CHINA CLAY COMPANY ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1932

Citations

164 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1932)
164 S.E. 341

Citing Cases

Antiquity, LLC v. Electricities of N.C., Inc.

]” Id. (citing Interstate Cooperage Co. v. Eureka Lumber Co., 151 N.C. 455, 456, 66 S.E. 434, 435 (1909)…

Wheatley v. Phillips

The case cannot be cited as a clear-cut holding on the facts that it might have been instituted in a county…