Lea v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 31 December 1848 |
| Citation | 31 N.C. 15,9 Ired. 15 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES AND SUSAN LEA v. JOHN JOHNSTON. |
The courts have no authority to have the lands of the citizens taken for a cart way, without the consent of the owner, except in the instance provided for by the Statute, “If any person shall be settled upon or cultivating any land, to which there is no public road leading or no way to get to or from the same, other than by crossing other persons' land.”
Therefore where there was a public road to which access might be had, though not so convenient for the petitioner, as the cart-way he prays for, the Court cannot grant the petition.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Caswell County, at Spring Term, 1848, his Honor Judge PEARSON presiding.
This was a case, originally commenced in the County Court by a petition for a cart-way, and thence carried by appeal to the Superior Court of Caswell County. The petition set forth that the petitioner, James, was the owner, and was cultivating a valuable tract of land, on which was situated a public mill on Cobb Creek, which runs through the said land; that the said land was situated about a mile and one half to the nearest point of it from Leasburg, and the mill about two miles; that he himself resided in Leasburg and had no wagon nor cart-way to his said plantation or mill, without going the Roxborough road into Person County about a half mile, and then along the Goshen Road in Person County about three miles, and then a cross road to the mill about a mile, making in all four and one half miles; and to the main part of his plantation was still farther and more inconvenient than to the mill.
And the petition further shewed that for a great many years there had been a cart and wagon way from Leasburg to his plantation and then turning from the Milton Road about half a mile from Leasburg, running through the lands of the petitioner Susan, and the defendant John, and the petitioner James, to the mill, which said way has been stopped up by the defendant John, and he now refuses to allow any passage over that way.
The petition further stated that the said way would not only be a great convenience to the petitioner James, but also the neighborhood generally; that the citizens of Leasburg had no other way to the said mill than that described, and the neighbors on the Court house side of Leasburg were thrown still further out of the way.
The petition further set forth that the petitioner, James, had no other way of going to his said mill and land, without going over the lands of others, than as above described, and it was not necessary to establish a public road, and the petitioners prayed an order to lay off a cart-way from the Milton Road, &c.
The County Court dismissed the petition on the motion of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court. The appeal coming on to be heard before the Judge of the said Court, his Honor ordered that judgment be entered against the defendant in the said petition for costs, and that the prayer of the petitioner be granted and that a writ of procedendo issue to the County Court accordingly. From which judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
E. G. Reade, for the plaintiffs .
The petition is filed under Chap. 104, Sec. 33. Rev. St. which provides that “if any person shall be settled upon or cultivating any land to which there is no public road leading, and no way to get to and from the same other than by crossing other persons land,” &c , he shall have a cart-way.
The object of the Statute is to enable land owners to use and enjoy their property to the best advantage; to remedy inconveniences. It is then a remedial Statute and ought to be liberally construed.
If to this it is answered that the Statute is restrictive of the rights of the defendant, and ought therefore to be strictly construed: it is replied, that the defendant is not injured. He is compensated in damages for all injury.
The defendant demurs to the petition and assigns two grounds.
1st. That it appears from the petition that there is a public road leading, & c. The showing in the petition upon which this objection is founded is, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Willis, FIRST-CITIZENS
...right of dissent at the end of that period. To hold otherwise would, in our opinion, add this case to 'the quicksands of the law.' Lea v. Johnston, 31 N.C. 15. The judgment of the lower court Affirmed. ...
-
United States Cold Storage, Inc. v. Town of Warsaw
...the law[;]’ in other words, a judge sometimes looks so much at the apparent hardship of the case as to overlook the law." Lea v. Johnston, 31 N.C. 15, 18–19 (1848).2 USCS makes an argument that it has a vested property right in continued service and that, therefore, the Town of Warsaw's act......
-
Speight v. Anderson
...way over the lands of any citizen by legislative fiat, for, to do so, would be taking private property without just compensation. Lea v. Johnston, 31 N.C. 15. construing the amendment, therefore, we may not assume that such was its intent. It follows that the 1941 Act, Chap. 183, P.L.1941, ......
-
Watkins v. Smith
...way over the lands of any citizen by legislative fiat, for, to do so, would be taking private property without just compensation. Lea v. Johnston, 31 N.C. 15. In construing the amendment, (G.S. 136-67 had been amended in 1941 to add the Proviso ) therefore, we may not assume that such was i......