Court Opinion

ID: 9810153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:41:36.364815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:25.952570
License: Public Domain

Clark, J.,
concurring: When an action is brought for ejectment, one who has been in possession under color of title for seven years is protected by the statute because, having been exposed to an action for that length of time, the statute has run in his favor. So, where one has been exposed to an action for trespass for 20 years, the law presumes therefrom the grant of an easement. But, here, the defendant under its charter enjoys legal possession and its easement by virtue of the right of eminent domain and has n'ever been exposed either to an action of ejectment or for trespass for an hour. The plaintiff could not have maintained an action for either of these causes and has not now attempted to do so. His sole remedy is under the constitutional provision giving him right to compensation. As to that cause of action there was no statute of limitations, (Land v. Railroad, 107 N. C., 72; Utley v. Railroad, 119 N. C., 720), until Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1893. But that statute conferred the right to plead that defence only upon railroads chartered since January 1, 1868, and the defendant cannot avail itself thereof. Chapter 224 of the Acts of 1895 applies to all railroads, but does not embrace “compensation for right of way,” and Chapter 339 of the Acts of 1897, making the Act of 1893 apply to railroad companies chartered prior to 1868, cannot affect this action. Nichols v. Railroad, 120 N. C., 495; Culbreth v. Downing, 121 N. C., 205.