Weaver v. Pitts
| Decision Date | 12 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 492. |
| Citation | 133 S.E. 2,191 N.C. 747 |
| Parties | WEAVER et al. v. PITTS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Siler, Special Judge.
Action by Susan Weaver and others against Conrad Pitts and others. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Evidence showing only permissive use by plaintiffs of road across defendants' lands as private way held insufficient to show right to private way by continuous adverse use for 20 years.
Action to recover damages for the obstruction by defendants of a private road or way leading from the lands of plaintiff over and across the lands of defendants to a public highway, and for judgment that plaintiffs are entitled to have said private road or way kept open for their uninterrupted use of the same. At close of plaintiff's evidence, motion of defendant for judgment of nonsuit was allowed. From judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.
J. L Murphy and John W. Aiken, both of Hickory, for appellants.
A. A Whitemer, of Hickory, and Wilson Warlick, of Newton, for appellees.
Plaintiffs allege that they have acquired, by prescription, the right to use, for the purposes of ingress and egress, to and from their dwelling house situate on their lands described in the complaint, a private road or way leading from their lands over and across the lands of defendants to the public highway; that defendants have wrongfully obstructed said private road or way, and prevented the use of the same by plaintiffs; and that plaintiffs have been endamaged by such wrongful acts of defendants. Defendants deny these allegations.
The evidence set out in the case on appeal tends to show that plaintiffs and those under whom they claim have used the private road or way described in the complaint for more than 50 years; that said private road or way passes over and across the lands of defendants; that it originally passed through the wooded or uncultivated land of defendants; and that it was first used for the purpose of hauling coal to a forge located on or near the lands of plaintiff off the public road during the years from about 1860 to 1875. This forge has long since been abandoned. Plaintiffs have used the road continuously, but have never worked it. About 26 years ago this road was obstructed by defendants for a few hours. The obstructions were removed by plaintiffs in order that they might use the road. In 1908 defendants cut a tree standing by the roadside, so that it fell across the road and obstructed it. One of the plaintiffs requested one of the defendants to remove the obstruction, asking him if he was willing for the road to be opened, and saying to him that, if he was not, an action would be brought at once to have the road opened. Defendant agreed to have the road opened, and the obstruction was removed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs continued to use the road from that time until January, 1924 when defendants closed the road by placing obstructions to its use therein. Since that time a public cartway has been laid off and opened across the lands of plaintiffs and defendants, over which plaintiffs have full egress and ingress from and to their lands. This cartway is a good, improved road, wide enough for two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamboa v. Clark
...enjoyment of neighborly courtesy, that the land owner is called upon ‘to go to law’ to protect his rights.”Id. (quoting Weaver v. Pitts, 191 N.C. 747, 133 S.E. 2, 3 (1926)). The court found all of this authority consistent with its statement a year earlier in State ex rel. Shorett v. Blue R......
-
In re Southern Ry. Co. Paving Assessment
...of the town of Kernersville. State v. Fisher, 117 N.C. 733, 23 S.E. 158; Durham v. Wright, 190 N.C. 568, 130 S.E. 161; Weaver v. Pitts, 191 N.C. 747, 133 S.E. 2; v. Power Co., 196 N.C. 617, 146 S.E. 531. But C. S. § 434, is as follows: "No railroad, plank road, turnpike or canal company may......
-
Gamboa v. Clark
...courtesy, that the landowner is called upon ‘to go to law’ to protect his rights.”Id. at 709, 175 P.2d 669 (quoting Weaver v. Pitts, 191 N.C. 747, 133 S.E. 2, 3 (1926) ). Applying a presumption of permissive use incentivizes landowners to allow neighbors to use their roads for the neighbors......
-
Darr v. Carolina Aluminum Co.
... ... Shute, 184 N.C. 383, 114 S.E. 470; Perry v ... White, 185 N.C. 79, 116 S.E. 84; Durham v ... Wright, 190 N.C. 568, 130 S.E. 161; Weaver v ... Pitts, 191 N.C. 747, 133 S.E. 2; Grant v. Power ... Co., 196 N.C. 617, 146 S.E. 531; Gruber v ... Eubank, 197 N.C. 280, 148 S.E. 246; ... ...