Legal Opinion
Ham v. City of Durham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided July 12, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtStact, C. J.
In an action involving this same property, and where a diagram of it appears, Hester v. Traction Co., 138 N. C., 288, 50 S. E., 711, Clark, C. J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said:
“The sidewalk is simply a part of the street Avhich the town authorities have set apart for the use of pedestrians. 27 A. & E. Enc. (2 ed.), 103; Ottawa v. Spencer, 40 Ill., 217; Chicago v. O'Brien, 53 Am. Rep., 640. Tlie abutting proprietor has no more right in the sidewalk than in the roadway. His rights are simply that the street (including roadway and sidewalk) shall not be closed or obstructed so as to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Moose v. . CarsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- White v. Northwestern North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Meares v. Commissioners of the Town of WilmingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1848
- Hester v. Traction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Attorney General v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sanders v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Hoskinson v. City of Iowa CitySupreme Court of Iowa · 2001
- Bessemer Improvement Co. v. City of GreensboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949