Masten v. . Texas Co.

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.