White v. . Coghill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBsogdbN, J.
Tbe plaintiff contends tbat sbe is entitled to a way of necessity over the lands of defendants, to be set apart and located by the court. The law of “way of necessity” is discussed in many cases in this State, notably, Cagle v. Parker, 97 N. C., 271, 2 S. E., 76; Lumber Co. v. Cedar Works, 158 N. C., 162, 73 S. E., 902; Carmon v. Dick, 170 N. C., 305, 87 S. E., 224; Brick Co. v. Hodgin, 190 N. C., 582, 130 S. E., 330; Weaver v. Pitts, 191 N. C., 747, 133 S. E., 2; Grant v. Power Co., 196 N. C., 617, 146 S. E., 531. See, also, Brasington v. Williams, 141 S. E., 375. The general rules of law…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Weaver v. . PittsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Brasington v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
- Carmon v. . DickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Cagle v. . ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Grant v. Tallassee Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Davis v. AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Davis v. . AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Pritchard v. ScottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Potter v. PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Andrews v. LovejoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.