Plaintiffs filed a complaint to quiet title and to obtain a declaration that they are the lawful owners of the land within the mow limits. The court denied the motion as untimely. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found that plaintiffs' possession and use of the disputed land were actual, open, notorious, continuous and exclusive for the statutory twenty-year period. It denied plaintiffs' claim, however, because it found that plaintiffs failed to prove that their possession and use were hostile and under a claim of right. The court also noted that an amended complaint alleging a prescriptive easement would fail for the same reason the adverse possession claim failed.
Plaintiffs now appeal.
The court found that the mill owners allowed and encouraged workers to use company property adjacent to their homes, and never refused permission for such use. The court concluded that if they had asked permission, the mill would have granted it. The court reached this conclusion by applying the correct legal standard to an unusual set of facts and circumstances. The court's determination that plaintiffs failed to meet its burden of proof will be reversed on appeal only if the evidence compels a contrary finding. In support of their argument plaintiffs contend that, unlike other residents, they never sought permission from the mill for their use of mill land, and that their open and notorious use of the land over 70 years was more than enough to put a prudent person on notice.