{
  "id": 8628305,
  "name": "JOHN B. LOVE, JR., v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Love v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-06-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "469",
  "last_page": "470",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "221 N.C. 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "101 S. E., 390",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N. C., 639",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273595
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0639-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S. E., 474",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/127/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253640
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 941",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255542
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0783-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 4124,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.495,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.755422121941312e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4090640033453688
    },
    "sha256": "73de424d7c74ce60c5560ca52c7439e873846892558c3c2cfaddf92ab34834b4",
    "simhash": "1:8d9fbf396a065451",
    "word_count": 701
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:36.695844+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN B. LOVE, JR., v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe action for trespass is barred by tbe tbree-year statute of limitations, C. S., 441 (ss. 3). Tbe applicable provision is tbat actions for continuing trespass upon real property shall be commenced witbin three years from tbe original trespass, i.e., in tbe language of tbe statute: \u201cWhen the trespass is a continuing one, tbe action shall be commenced witbin three years from tbe original trespass, and not thereafter.\u201d\nIt was said in Teeter v. Tel. Co., 172 N. C., 783, 90 S. E., 941, tbat an action such as tbe present is to be regarded as one for a continuing trespass witbin tbe meaning of tbe law. Hence, for damages incident to tbe original wrong, and for tbat alone, no recovery can be bad after the lapse of three years. But tbe plaintiff also sues for permanent damages, which, on recovery and payment, so far as plaintiff is concerned, would confer on tbe defendant tbe right to maintain its line on plaintiff\u2019s land for an indefinite period with tbe right to enter thereon, when reasonably required, for \u201ctbe planting, repairing, and preservation of its poles and other property.\u201d Caveness v. R. R., 172 N. C., 305, 90 S. E., 244. In short, in its broader aspect, tbe suit is to recover for tbe value of an easement, which can pass to tbe defendant only by grant, condemnation or prescription \u2014 this last by adverse possession and continuous user for a period of twenty years. Teeter v. Tel. Co., supra.\nIn case of railroads, by C. S., 440, this period has been reduced -to five years, but there being no such statute in respect of telegraph companies, tbe common-law period of twenty years is required. Geer v. Water Co., 127 N. C., 349, 37 S. E., 474.\nTbe awarding of permanent damages would be equivalent to tbe acquisition of an easement by condemnation. Geer v. Water Co., supra; Query v. Tel. Co., 178 N. C., 639, 101 S. E., 390.\nViewing tbe action, then, not simply as one for tbe original trespass, but also to recover permanent damages as compensation for an easement, there was error in allowing tbe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. H. Ciarle and Edward B. Clark for plaintiff, appellant. '",
      "Rountree & Rountree for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN B. LOVE, JR., v. POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY.\n(Filed 5 June, 1942.)\n1. Trespass \u00a7 lg\u2014\nThe placing and maintenance by a telegraph company of its transmission lines on private lands constitutes a continuing trespass.\n2. Easements \u00a7 4: Eminent Domain \u00a7 24: Telephone and Telegraph Companies \u00a7 4\u2014\nWhere the owner of land seeks to recover permanent damages to his land by reason of the maintenance by a telegraph company of its transmission lines upon his lands, the awarding of permanent damages would be equivalent to the acquisition of an easement by condemnation.\n3. Limitation of Actions \u00a7 6\u2014\nWhere the owner of land seeks to recover for trespass and for permanent damages to his land resulting from the erection and maintenance by ' defendant telegraph company of its transmission lines over his land, the action for trespass is barred by the three-year statute of limitations, \u2022 O. S., 441 (3), the trespass being a continuing trespass, but the action for permanent damages as compensation for the easement is not barred until defendant has been in continuous use thereof for a period of twenty years so as to acquire the right by prescription.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Bone, J., at January Term, 1942, from BLADEN.\nCivil action for trespass and for permanent damages.\nIn 1891 tbe defendant constructed its transmission lines along a trail or highway over lands in Bladen County, now owned by tbe plaintiff. In 1927, when tbe highway was widened, tbe defendant moved part of its transmission lines from tbe highway right of way, to tbe extent of 24 poles, over on tbe lands now occupied by tbe plaintiff.\nTbis action was instituted 27 September, 1940, to recover for tbe original trespass and for permanent damages.\nTbe defendant denied liability and pleaded tbe tbree-year statute of limitations, C. S., 441 (ss. 3).\nFrom judgment of nonsuit entered at tbe close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, be appeals, assigning error.\nH. H. Ciarle and Edward B. Clark for plaintiff, appellant. '\nRountree & Rountree for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0469-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 506
}