City of Durham v. Wright
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClaeKSON, J.
-The city of Durham claims to own the locus in quo■ — • a strip of land 34.4 feet in length and 35 inches (nearly 3 feet) in width, between the projections (or pilasters) of the sidewalks of the building. It has never paid any “just compensation” for it, but claims it (1) by dedication, (2) by prescription, (3) under statutory dedication or authority. We do not think the position of the city can be sustained.
In Shute v. Monroe, 187 N. C., p. 683, it was said: “The Anglo-Saxon holds no material thing dearer than the ownership of the land; his home is termed his ‘castle.’ Although there is…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Johnston v. . RankinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Evansville & Grawfordsville Railroad v. DickIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
- Draper v. Conner & Walters Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Lawrence v. FultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Wade v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hemphill v. . Board of AldermenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Henry v. FarlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- M. E. Gruber, Inc. v. EubankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Darr v. Carolina Aluminum Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Colvin v. Tallassee Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.