
    T. L. COX v. OAKDALE COTTON MILLS, INC.
    (Filed 7 April, 1937.)
    Venue § 3—
    An action to recover damages to land caused by alleged wrongful obstruction of a river causing ponding of water on plaintiff's land, does not involve title to or any interest in land, and is transitory for tbe purposes of venue, and defendant’s motion to remove to tbe county of its residence, where its land is situate upon wbicb tbe obstruction was built, is properly refused.
    Appeal by defendant from Alley, J., at February Term, 1937, of Randolph.
    Affirmed.
    This action was beard on tbe motion of tbe defendant made in apt time, for tbe removal of the action, as a matter of right, from tbe Superior Court of Randolph to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County, for trial.
    Tbe motion was denied and tbe defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court, assigning error in tbe order denying its motion.
    
      J. Allen Austin and J. G. Prevette for plaintiff.
    
    
      Roberson, Haworth & Reese for defendant.
    
   PeR Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries suffered by tbe plaintiff, as tbe owner of land situate in Randolph County. Tbe plaintiff is a resident of said county. Tbe action was begun in tbe Superior Court of Randolph County.

Tbe defendant is a resident of Guilford County. It owns land situate in said county. In apt time, C. S., 470, tbe defendant moved that tbe action be removed from tbe Superior Court of Bandolpb County to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County, for trial, as a matter of right. C. S., 463.

It is alleged in tbe complaint tbat tbe injuries wbicb tbe plaintiff bas suffered were caused by tbe artificial obstruction by tbe defendant, on its land in Guilford County, of tbe water in- a river wbicb flows through tbe land of tbe defendant, and thence to and through tbe land of the plaintiff.

For purposes of venue, tbe action is transitory and not local. Clay Co. v. Clay Co., 203 N. C., 12, 164 S. E., 341; Causey v. Morris, 195 N. C,, 532, 142 S. E., 783. The action does not involve title to or any interest in land. There is, therefore, no error in tbe order denying tbe motion of tbe defendant. Tbe order is

Affirmed.  