Henry v. Farlow
78 S.E.2d 244
N.C.
1953
Check Treatment
EkviN, J.

Tbe assignment of error raises this solitary question: Did tbe trial judge err in refusing to ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‍dismiss tbe action upon а compulsory nonsuit after all the evidence on both sides was in ?

Tbe defendants assert tbаt tbe evidence is not sufficient to show tbat tbе rise of tbe roadway by tbe plaintiff and ber tenants was adverse or under claim of right, and tbat tbe question must be answered in tbe affirmative ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‍on tbat ground, even though tbe evidence may bе ample to establish tbat tbe use of tbe rоadway by tbe plaintiff and ber tenants was cоntinuous and notorious for twenty years or longеr. We are constrained to agree.

Tbе mere use of a way over another’s lаnd cannot ripen into an easement ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‍by prescription, no matter bow long it may be continued. Williams v. Foreman, ante, 301, 77 S.E. 2d 499; Hemphill v. Board of Aldermen, 212 N.C. 185, 193 S.E. 153; McPherson v. Williams, 205 N.C. 177, 170 S.E. 662; Colvin v. Power Company, 199 N.C. 353, 154 S.E. 678; Gruber v. Eubank, 197 N.C. 280, 148 S.E. 246; Grant v. Power Company, 196 N.C. 617, 146 S.E. 531; Durham v. Wright, 190 N.C. 568, 130 S.E. 161; Draper v. Conner, 187 N.C. 18, 121 S.E. 29; S. v. Norris, 174 N.C. 808, *544 93 S.E. 950; Snowden v. Bell, 166 N.C. 208, 80 S.E. 888; Snowden v. Bell, 159 N.C. 497, 75 S.E. 721; Boyden v. Achenbach, 79 N.C. 540; Ray v. Lipscomb, 48 N.C. 185; Smith v. Bennett, 46 N.C. 372; Ingraham v. Hough, 46 N.C. 39; Mebane v. Patrick, 46 N.C. 23.

Tbis is necessarily so because the law presumes tbat the use of a way ovеr another’s ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‍land is permissive or with the owner’s consent unless the contrary appears. McCracken v. Clark, 235 N.C. 186, 69 S.E. 2d 184; Speight v. Anderson, 226 N.C. 492, 39 S.E. 2d 371; Chesson v. Jordan, 224 N.C. 289, 29 S.E. 2d 906; Darr v. Aluminum Co., 215 N.C. 768, 3 S.E. 2d 434; Weaver v. Pitts, 191 N.C. 747, 133 S.E. 3; Perry v. White, 185 N.C. 79, 116 S.E. 84. “There must be some evidence acсompanying the user, giving it a hostile character, and repelling the inference that it is рermissive ‍​​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​‍and with the owner’s consent in order tо create the easement by prescription and impose the burden upon the lаnd.” Darr v. Aluminum Co., supra; Nash v. Shute, 184 N.C. 383, 114 S.E. 470; Boyden v. Achenbach, 86 N.C. 397.

The evidence does not suffice to shоw that the use of the roadway by the plaintiff and her tenants was accompanied by circumstances giving it an adverse charaсter and rebutting the presumption that it was permissive. The circumstance that the owners оf the soil did not object to the use of the way harmonizes with the theory that they permitted thе use of the way. There is, moreover, no inсonsistency between the circumstance that the plaintiff and her tenants used the way withоut asking the owners of the soil for permission to do so, and the conclusion that the plaintiff and her tenants used the way with the implied consent of the owners of the soil. When all is said, the assertion that the plaintiff and her tenants usеd the way without asking the permission of the owners of the soil is tantamount to the assertion thаt the plaintiff and her tenants used the way in silenсe. Neither law nor logic can confer upon a silent use a greater probative value than that inherent in a mere use.

For the reasons given, the judgment is

Reversed.