# Dickinson v. Pake

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · February 1, 1974 · 284 N.C. 576

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849968

## Case

- **Full name:** ELLEN DICKINSON, JAMES LUPTON, CALLIE FERRIER, WILLIAM BAKER LUPTON, and ALLEN W. LUPTON v. CHARLES L. PAKE and Wife, TOMMIE PAKE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 1, 1974
- **Citations:** 284 N.C. 576; 201 S.E.2d 897; 1974 N.C. LEXIS 1290
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Branch
- **Judges:** Huskins, Branch
- **Cited by:** 157 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/9849968

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that because an appurtenant easement "is incidental to the possession of the dominant tenement, every succeeding possessor is entitled to the benefit of it while it continues to exist as such an easement and he remains in possession."
- recognizing that “successive adverse users in privity with prior adverse users can tack successive adverse possessions of land so as to aggregate the prescriptive period of twenty years.”

## Opinion text

Justice Branch
dissenting.
I am of the opinion that this case is controlled by the case of Henry v. Farlow, 238 N.C. 542 , 78 S.E. 2d 244 . There, plaintiff and her tenants used a roadway across defendant’s land for a period of twenty-five years. Plaintiff did not request permission to use the roadway and defendant landowners voiced no objection to plaintiff’s use of the roadway. This Court held that these facts did not show that the use of the roadway by plaintiff was accompanied by circumstances giving it an adverse character so as to rebut the presumption that the use was permissive:
I do not think that the facts of instant case disclose evidence of adverse or hostile use of the roadway by plaintiffs sufficient to rebut the presumption that the use of the roadway was permissive,
I vote to affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849968. Public record. Not legal advice.