The opinion
Per Curiam.
The defendant at the close of plaintiffs’ evidence made a motion in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. The court below granted the motion and in this we can see no error.
C. S., 1696, is as follows: “Every electric power or hydro-electric power corporation which may exercise the right of eminent domain under the chapter Eminent Domain, where in the development of electric or hydro-electric power it shall become necessary to use or occupy any public highway, or any part of the same, after obtaining the consent of the board of county commissioners of the county in which such public highway is situate, shall have power to appropriate said public highway for the development of electric or hyro-electric power:
Provided,
that said electric power or hydro-electric power corporation shall construct an equally good public highway, by a route to be selected by and subject to the approval and satisfaction of the board of county commissioners of the county in which said public highway is situated:
Provided further, that said company shall pay all damages to- he assessed as provided by law, by the damming of water, the discontinuance of the road, and for the laying out of said new road.”
(Italics ours.)
Plaintiff contends that under the above statute they have a right of action. That the ease of
Grant v. Power Co.,
196 N. C., p. 617, and
Colvin v. Power Co.,
199 N. C., 353 , are similar and controlling.
*210
From a careful reading of plaintiff’s evidence, which, it is unnecessary to set forth in detail, we think the above statute is not applicable to the present action and the eases cited by plaintiffs are distinguishable from the present one. The judgment below is
Affirmed.