The submission of a controversy of this Character on issues addressed to the land and crops separately, while not always necessary, is at times desirable for the proper presentation of the questions involved, and such a course has been approved with us by direct decisions on the subject. Beasley v. R. R., 147 N. C., 362; Ridley v. R. R., 124 N. C., 37.
We are of opinion, however, that there was error committed to defendant’s prejudice in charging the jury on the fourth issue: “That if they believed the evidence in this case they would answer the issue 'Yes.’ ”
While there are facts in evidence tending to support plaintiff’s position, there is also testimony on the part of the defendant to the effect that plaintiff has suffered no injury from the construction and maintenance of the defendant road, either to his land or crops, and the issue should have been submitted as an open question for the jury to determine.
And, owing to the connection between the issues on the question of liability, for the error indicated, we think that, in the discretion of the court, a general new trial should be awarded.
On the issue as to the statute of limitations it has been held with us that for injuries arising from the original and permanent construction of a railroad, properly maintained, the action is controlled by section 394 of Revisal, requiring that the same shall be instituted within five years from the infraction of substantial damages to the property. But *40for injuries arising from negligent failure to properly maintain tbe road, sucb as keeping open culverts and tbe like, actions may be brought from time to time and recovery bad for tbe three years preceding tbe institution of tbe suit, as in ordinary cases of recurrent injury.
Tbe differing views will be found presented and illustrated in Rice v. R. R., 167 N. C., 1; Duval v. R. R., 161 N. C., 448; Campbell v. R. R., 159 N. C., 586, and other like cases, and it may be in tbe further trial of tbe cause tbat tbe issue on tbe statute of limitations should also be submitted to tbe jury.
For tbe reasons heretofore stated,. defendant is entitled to • a new trial of tbe case, and it is so ordered.
New trial.