Court Opinion

ID: 9808254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:31:40.073889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:31.159336
License: Public Domain

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. This is another case in which I would wish to state my views at greater length; but it is perhaps unnecessary to do so in view of my dissenting opinion in Jones v. Comrs., 130 N. C., 457, and Dargan v. Railroad, 131 N. C., 626. I need only repeat-that in my opinion any construction of a statute which has the effect of taking private property without compensation and without giving the owner any adequate remedy for obtaining compensation, is contrary to the Constitution of this State as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I may also say that in my opinion any statutes of limitation which discriminate against the citizen by taking from him his property while in the actual possession thereof, and giving it to a railroad corporation upon a mere constructive possession, is contrary to the letter and spirit of section 3, Article VIII of the Constitution of this State, which provides that: “All corporations shall have the right to sue and shall be subject to be sued in all courts in like manner as natural persons.” *224I am especially interested in tbe principles decided in this case on account of its unjust tendencies and dangerous possibilities. Hitherto tbe lands thus taken have been of comparatively small value, but if tbe principle is correct, wbat is there to prevent railroad companies from demanding a right of way two hundred feet wide through our principal cities, and thus appropriating perhaps millions of private property without the shadow of compensation. The value of the property would make no difference in the justice and legality of the claim. The cabin of the poor is as sacred as the mansion of the rich, and both should equally receive the fullest protection of the law.