Hines v. Jarrett

Citations

• 26 S.C. 480
• 2 S.E. 393
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 65

Syllabus

<p>1. Where the complaint alleges injuries done to the lands of plaintiff by a dam erected by the two defendants, and afterwards continued by one of the defendants to whom the other had conveyed his interest, two causes of action for separate injuries are improperly united in the same complaint. In such case, the complaint should have been dismissed, or the plaintiff required to elect between the actions. Mr.. Justice McGowan dissenting.</p> <p>2. In appeals involving the correctness of the judge’s charge to the jury in a law case, it is unnecessary to bring before this court all the testimony as it was taken at the trial. It is sufficient to present only such facts as bear upon the rulings and charges of the trial judge.</p> <p>3. A parol encouragement to defendant to establish a mill for the public convenience, given by plaintiff and others, does not constitute a license to flow lands of plaintiff higher up the stream on which the mill and dam are erected.</p> <p>4. The Circuit Judge did not err in charging the jury in this case, that “a natural flow of sand is just as much a legitimate flow as a flow of water; and if the sand just came down in the natural way, and would have passed off but for the erection of this dam, and the stoppage of the water caused the stoppage of the sand, and that caused injury to the plaintiff, he would have a right of action.”</p> <p>5. Where the accumulation of sand in a stream, to the injury of an upper riparian owner, is caused by a mill dam erected lower down on the same stream, the owner of the dam is not relieved from responsibility, even if this accumulation results in part from hill-side clearings of such upper riparian owner.</p>