Court Opinion

ID: 9845822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:28:54.790172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:22.918000
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting.
In order to sustain her right to a prescriptive use of the way, Mrs. Strauss had to prove adverse use of the way against Longworth, the predecessor in title to Fine. The undisputed evidence shows that, while Longworth owned the way, he and Mrs. Strauss jointly and in co-operation with each other kept the way in repair. There is no evidence that Mrs. Strauss ever repaired the way except co-operatively! with Longworth. Under these facts I do not think that Mrs. Strauss can be said to have acted adversely to Long-worth either in the repair or use of the way. In view of the co-operative repair, I think that Mrs. Strauss’s use of the way was by implied permission and not mere passive acquiescence. The Wisconsin case, cited by the majority, is not one of co-operative repair, but of separate *356and unassociated acts of repair by the owner and prescriber. Neither is the West Virginia case authority for the ruling, under the facts of this case.