Fields v. Ginger

I dissent from this decision because I believe that the chancellor’s findings that the appellees acquired a prescriptive easement of a driveway and tide by adverse possession to a six-foot strip of adjacent property were clearly against the preponderance of the evidence and, therefore, erroneous. The chancellor made those findings despite uncontra-dicted proof that the area was originally owned by appellants’ predecessors in title who had given appellees’ predecessor in title permission to use the driveway and the area adjacent to it. The permissive use never ripened into adverse use.

The…