The establishment, alteration, or discontinuance of any cartway, church road, mill road, or like easement, for the benefit of any person, firm, association, or corporation, over the lands of another, shall be determined by a special proceeding instituted before the clerk of the superior court in the county where the property affected is situated. Such special proceeding shall be commenced by a petition filed with said clerk and the service of a copy thereof on the person or persons whose property will be affected thereby. From any final order or judgment in said special proceeding, any interested party may appeal to the superior court for a jury trial de novo on all issues including the right to relief, the location of a cartway, tramway or railway, and the assessment of damages. The procedure established under Chapter 40A, entitled "Eminent Domain," shall be followed in the conduct of such special proceeding insofar as the same is applicable and in harmony with the provisions of this section. (1879, c. 82, s. 9; Code, s. 2023; Rev., s. 2683; C.S., s. 3835; 1931, c. 448; 1995, c. 513, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Turlington v. McLeod, 374 S.E.2d 394 (N.C. 1988).
· cites it 6× “During some periods since then, the petitioner has had permission from some of the other respondents to use their property for access between his property and rural paved road 2008.”
Jones v. Robbins, 660 S.E.2d 118 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “On 18 February 2005, petitioners instituted this action seeking to have a cartway established to provide access to their property, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 136-68 and 136-69. The petition alleged that petitioners were “engaged in the cultivation of said land and/or the…”
Onuska v. Barnwell, 537 S.E.2d 840 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 16× “On 25 June 1997 petitioners instituted a special proceeding before the Clerk of Superior Court for Henderson County to establish a cartway across the property of respondents pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 136-68 and 136-69 (1999).”
West v. Slick, 326 S.E.2d 601 (N.C. 1985).
“or streets whatsoever outside of the boundaries of any incorporated city or town in the State which serve a public use and as a means of ingress or egress for one or more families, regardless of whether the same have ever been a portion of any State or county road system, are…”
Davis v. Forsyth Cnty., 453 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “We, however, are guided by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-68 which provides that “the procedure established under Chapter 40 entitled ‘Eminent Domain,’ shall be followed in the conduct of [a special proceeding to establish a cartway right].”
Walton v. Meir, 188 S.E.2d 56 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 3× “2d 33 (1963), was a special proceeding under G.S. 136-68 and G.S. 136-69 to establish a cartway over the lands of another to a public road or a neighborhood public road.”
Pritchard v. Scott, 118 S.E.2d 890 (N.C. 1961).
· cites it 2× “Coghill, supra, the plaintiff, by civil action, sought to establish a way of necessity over the land of the defendant.”
Yadkin Valley Land Co. v. Baker, 539 S.E.2d 685 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “On 23 June 1997, Yadkin filed separate complaints — one each in connection with the south property and the east property — setting forth three claims: (1) easement by necessity, (2) easement by prescription, and (3) right to statutory cartway under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 136-68 and…”
Jones v. Winckelmann, 516 S.E.2d 876 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “The action was brought under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 136-68 and 136-69, as amended by Chapter 513 of the 1995 Session Laws.”
Yount v. Lowe, 215 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1975).
“On 8 July 1969 he instituted a cartway proceeding under G.S. 136-68 et seq. to establish a cartway across the lands of Paul Rhodes, plaintiffs’ predecessor in title.”
Clinard v. Lambeth, 67 S.E.2d 452 (N.C. 1951).
“136-67 defines what is a neighborhood public road, and as so defined declares that such roads shall be subject to all the provisions of G.S. 136-68, G.S. 136-69 and G.S. 136-70 with respect to the alteration, extension, or discontinuance thereof, and authorizes any interested…”
Potter v. Potter, 112 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. 1960).
“, 3835 and 3836 (G.S. 136-68 and 136-69) as the exclusive remedy to which plaintiff is entitled.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.