Barger v. . Barringer
151 N.C. 433, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 295, 66 S.E. 439 (1909)
Rule of Law:
A property owner may not erect a structure on their own land that serves no useful or ornamental purpose and is motivated solely by malice to injure a neighbor by obstructing light and air.
Facts:
- The plaintiff and defendant owned adjoining lots and had previously constructed a mutual four-foot wire fence on the division line.
- The plaintiff, serving as the chief of police, filed a report regarding the filthy condition of the defendant's stables.
- Motivated solely by vengeance and malice due to the report, the defendant constructed a rough, unsightly board fence on his side of the property line.
- The new fence stood eight feet and six inches high and was positioned within four feet of the plaintiff's windows.
- The structure completely obstructed the plaintiff's view, air, and sunlight, to the extent that the plaintiff was unable to shave by natural light.
- The fence served no useful or ornamental purpose for the defendant and was maintained purely to annoy the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant in the trial court seeking damages for the erection of the fence.
- At the close of the evidence, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit, ruling that the plaintiff could not recover under the law.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment of nonsuit to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner commit an actionable nuisance when they erect a useless fence on their own property solely for the malicious purpose of obstructing a neighbor's light and air?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No, the law does not sanction the malicious use of property for the sole purpose of injuring a neighbor. The Court reasoned that while an owner generally has a right to improve their property, this right is not absolute when exercised solely to gratify malice with no corresponding benefit to the owner. The Court adopted the view that the maxim 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (use your property so as not to injure another) prohibits such wanton injury. The Court distinguished legitimate improvements that cause annoyance from useless nuisances created solely for spite, concluding that the law cannot protect acts done from pure malevolence.
Dissenting - Justice Hoke
Yes, a lawful act done on one's own land does not become unlawful merely because of a bad motive. The Dissent argued that easements for light and air cannot be acquired by prescription in this jurisdiction and that ownership rights are absolute. Since the defendant had a legal right to build on his land, the court should not inquire into his motives, as malice disconnected from the infringement of a legal right is not actionable. The Justice believed that inquiries into motive belong to the domain of morals, not civil law.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant departure from the strict English common law rule regarding property rights, which traditionally allowed owners to build whatever they wished on their land regardless of motive. By recognizing 'spite fences' as actionable nuisances, the court injected a moral element into property law, establishing that the right to ownership does not include the right to purely malicious conduct that injures a neighbor without benefiting the owner. This decision aligns North Carolina with jurisdictions that prioritize social welfare and the 'golden rule' over absolute property dominion. It effectively curbs the abuse of property rights where the sole intent is harm.
