This action was tried in the Forsyth Cоunty Court. After the plaintiffs had intrоduced their evidencе, motion was made by defеndant for judgment as in case of nonsuit, C. S., 567, which was allowеd. Plaintiffs excepted, assigned error and apрealed to the Supеrior Court. The judgment of the Forsyth County Court was reversed and the action remandеd to said court for trial on the facts. Defendant, Tеxas Company, excepted, assigned error and appealed to the Supreme Court. We think the еvidence, though circumstаntial, more than a scintilla, and sufficient to be submitted tо a jury. Ledford v. Power Co., ante, p. 98. The probative force is for a jury to determine.
*542 Tbe principle uрon wbicb tbe action is bоttomed 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 pеrmitting 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 appropriatеd, is liable to tbe latter in dаmages, 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 streаm than a surface streаm. 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 mаn 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.