O'Cain v. O'Cain
South Carolina Court of Appeals
322 S.C. 551, 472 S.E.2d 460 (1996)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Lever O’Cain (defendant) and Harold O’Cain (plaintiff) owned two adjoining tracts of land gifted to each by their father. The original property boundary line was a creek. A public, paved road was subsequently built between the two properties, but the road did not follow the property line. As a result, there was a strip of Lever’s land between the road and Harold’s property, directly in front of Harold’s home. Lever ran a hog-raising business. In 1994, Lever fenced in the strip of land between the road and Harold’s property and moved his hogs there. Previously, the hogs had been kept elsewhere on Lever’s property, farther from Harold’s home. Harold sued Lever, alleging that Lever’s choice to keep his hogs on that strip of land constituted a private nuisance. Harold and his family members testified that the hogs were an embarrassment, created an overpowering odor, attracted tons of flies, and impeded the marketability of Harold’s home. Harold testified that that odor and flies from the hogs were substantially worse than when the hogs had been located elsewhere on Lever’s property. Harold’s action was tried before a master-in-equity, who denied the requested injunction, holding that the placement of Lever’s hogs did not constitute a private nuisance. Harold appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Huff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
