Court Opinion

ID: 9809458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:14:28.614115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:56.046092
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part: I think tbat tbe main opinion is correct, provided tbe statute, cb. 433, Public-Local Laws 1923, is constitutional, but tbe proviso in section 2 is as follows: "Provided, tbat this act shall apply only to tbe counties of Yancey, Mitchell, and Haywood.” This is contrary to tbe Constitution of North Carolina, Art. I, see. 7: “No man or set of men are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from tbe community but in consideration of public services.” Simonton v. Lanier, 71 N. C., 498; S. v. Fowler, 193 N. C., 290 (292); Pott v. Ferguson, 202 N. C., 446; Hendrix v. R. R., 202 N. C., 579; Edgerton v. Hood, Comr., 205 N. C., 816.
There is a general statute of this State giving telegraph, telephone, electric power or lighting companies a right to condemn land “upon making just compensation therefor.” N. C. Code, 1935 (Micbie), sec. 1698.
Tbe right of easement may be acquired by adverse and continuous user for tbe period of 20 years. Teeter v. Postal Tel. Co., 172 N. C., 783. In tbe present case I think tbe court below correct in applying tbe twenty-year statute, and there is no error in tbe judgment of the court below.