Busby v. Fla. Cent. & P. R. Co

Citation46 S.C. 312,23 S.E. 50
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decision Date10 October 1895
PartiesBUSBY v. FLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO.

23 S.E. 50
46 S.C. 312

BUSBY
v.
FLORIDA CENT. & P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 10, 1895.


Fires Set by Railroad—Title to Maintain Action—Adverse Possession.

1. A person, by the adverse possession of land for the statutory period, acquires such a title as to enable him to recover from a railway company for injuries to the land caused by a fire started by the company.

2. Since, under the Code, limitations run against the state, title to land by adverse possession may be shown by proof of possession for a sufficient length of time to bar an action for its recovery by the state, without proof of a grant from the state.

[23 S.E. 51]

3. Where, in an action for injury to land, there is evidence of payment of taxes thereon for years, and that the state was making no claim thereto, it is a question for the jury whether the state had granted the land.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Lexington county; J. H. Earle, Judge.

Action by J. C. Busby against the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

C. J. C. Hutson and Lyles & Muller, for appellant.

Andrew Crawford and Robt. W. Shand, for respondent.

McIVER, C. J. This was an action to recover damages caused by sparks of fire emitted from a locomotive engine of the defendant company, which ignited combustible material on defendant's right of way, from which the fire spread over the lands of plaintiff. In defendant's answer, the allegation that the lands over which the fire spread belonged to the plaintiff was denied. This put the plaintiff to the proof of this title, for which purpose he relied upon adverse possession for the space of 15 years, but there was no evidence that the land had ever been granted by the state. It was, however, stated at the hearing that there was evidence that the plaintiff had been paying taxes on the land during the period of his adverse possession; and, by consent, the case was amended so as to embrace the testimony to that effect. At the close of plaintiffs' testimony, a motion for a nonsuit was made, upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show any title in himself to the land. His honor, Judge Earle, ruled that "where one shows ten years' adverse possession, whether under color of title or not, —shows actual occupancy for ten years, —holding the land as his own adversely, that he has such title, being shown by that proof, as will give him standing in court." Accordingly, the motion was refused; and, at the close of the testimony adduced on both sides, the jury were instructed as to the question of title, in accordance with the ruling on the motion for a nonsuit. A verdict having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment having been entered thereon, tie defendant appealed upon two grounds set out in the record, which substantially make the single question whether there was error in the ruling as to the question of title.

The precise question, as we understand it, intended to be presented...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT