# Manning v. Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · December 3, 1924 · 188 N.C. 648

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808655

## Case

- **Full name:** James S. Manning, Attorney-General of North Carolina v. Atlantic and Yadkin Railway Company, Southern Railway Company, and Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** December 3, 1924
- **Citations:** 188 N.C. 648; 125 S.E. 555; 1924 N.C. LEXIS 148
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clarkson
- **Judges:** Adams, Clarkson
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808655

## Opinion text

Clarkson, J.,
concurring: I concur in the result reached by Mr. Justice Adams solely on the ground that the plaintiff is estopped by laches to prosecute this action.
*667 Nearly a quarter of a century has elapsed since tbe dismemberment took place and before this suit was instituted. Innocent bondholders and others have acquired rights in this property as dismembered. The State, through its taxing power, has recognized the dismemberment. The severance of this east and west connection has, no doubt, as charged in this case, worked a great injury to the people of the section of the State through which the road operated as an entirety, but the long delay by the.State in the assertion of its rights, with full knowledge of all the facts; the security of property rights acquired by innocent holders of bonds; the State, through its taxing power, having recognized all these years the dismemberment; the physical property being in the actual adverse possession of the railroad; the interest of public order and. tran-quillity, require diligence in the assertion of rights, and courts of equity have always refused to entertain stale claims.
The authorities fully recognize that from the lapse of time, under facts as presented in this case, courts of equity refuse to grant relief.
This Court, in Sprinkle v. Holton, 146 N. C., 266 , said: “The security of property rights, the peace of families, and the public welfare demand that there must be an end of litigation. Courts of equity have always wisely refused to entertain 'stale claims.’ ”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9808655. Public record. Not legal advice.