McCracken v. Clark
| Decision Date | 27 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,26 |
| Citation | 235 N.C. 186,69 S.E.2d 184 |
| Parties | McCRACKEN et al. v. CLARK et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
W. R. Francis, Waynesville and Jones & Ward, Asheville, for plaintiffs, appellants.
James H. Howell, Jr., Morgan & Ward, and Glenn W. Brown, all of Waynesville, for defendants, appellees.
The trial court erred in directing the verdict on the second issue. On that issue, the burden of proof was upon the defendants. This being so, they were not entitled to a directed instruction.
To establish the easement claimed by the defendants the burden of proof was upon them to satisfy the jury by the greater weight of the evidence that the user relied on was hostile in character, rather than permissive and with the owners' consent. McPherson v. Williams, 205 N.C. 177, 170 S.E. 662; Chesson v. Jordan, 224 N.C. 289, at page 292, 29 S.E.2d 906. 'Permissive use is presumed until the contrary is made to appear.' Speight v. Anderson, 226 N.C. 492, at page 497, 39 S.E.2d 371, at page 374.
It is established by many authoritative decisions of this Court that a directed instruction in favor of the party having the burden of proof is forbidden. Haywood v. Home Ins. Co., 218 N.C. 736, 12 S.E.2d 221, and cases cited.
We have not overlooked the defendants' contention that they acquired an easement by implied grant. As to this phase of the case, the burden of proof was none the less on the defendants. 17 Am.Jur., Easements, Sec. 54, see also sections 32, 33, and 48; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N.C. 305, 87 S.E. 224; Ferrell v. Durham Bank & Trust Co., 221 N.C. 432, 20 S.E.2d 329.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cutts v. Casey
...Rhinehardt v. Insurance Co., 254 N.C. 671, 672, 119 S.E.2d 614, 615; Shelby v. Lackey, 236 N.C. 369, 72 S.E.2d 757; McCracken v. Clark, 235 N.C. 186, 69 S.E.2d 184; House v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 131 N.C. 103, 42 S.E. 553; Mfg. Co. v. R.R., 128 N.C. 280, 38 S.E. 894; 4 N.C. Index Trial § ......
-
Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.
...is well established with us that a directed instruction in favor of the party having the burden of proof is forbidden. McCracken v. Clark, 235 N.C. 186, 69 S.E.2d 184; Haywood v. Home Ins. Co., 218 N.C. 736, 12 S.E.2d 221. See also Bryant v. Murray, 239 N.C. 18, 25, 79 S.E.2d 243, 248. Conc......
-
Henry v. Farlow
...that the use of a way over another's land is permissive or with the owner's consent unless the contrary appears. McCracken v. Clark, 235 N.C. 186, 69 S.E.2d 184; Speight v. Anderson, 226 N.C. 492, 39 S.E.2d 371; Chesson v. Jordan, 224 N.C. 289, 29 S.E.2d 906; Darr v. Carolina Aluminum Co., ......
-
Barbee v. Edwards
...enough to say that this plea raised an issue of fact for the jury, with the burden of the issue being on the defendant. McCracken v. Clark, 235 N.C. 186, 69 S.E.2d 184; Blue Ridge Land Co. v. Floyd, It may be conceded that the plaintiff's admission that he gave Weaver possession of the prem......