Gore v. Skipper
| Decision Date | 17 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 19104,19104 |
| Citation | 176 S.E.2d 569,255 S.C. 18 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Marion H. GORE, Robert E. Ambrose, Lee Rabon, Sam Lewis, Jr., and Jimmie Frye, Appellants, v. Gary SKIPPER, Jenkins Skipper, Charles Skipper, Roy Skipper, Willie JoeBaxley, Pee Dee Farms Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Alex Alford,Hubert Alford, and Aubrey Skipper, Respondents. |
Jack H. Page, Conway, for appellants.
John C. Thompson, Allen L. Ray, of Suggs & McCutcheon, Conway, for respondents.
It appears from the pleadings in this case that Pee Dee Farms Corporation and Georgia-Pacific Corporation own in the aggregate approximately 30,000 acres of land located on the east side of Little Pee Dee River, near Gallivant's Ferry, in Horry County, South Carolina, and located thereon are certain fresh water lakes. Gary Skipper and others own the hunting rights on a portion of the aforesaid premises. There are certain roads upon the aforesaid lands leading to the lakes.
This action was commenced by Marion L. Gore and others, on behalf of themselves and the general public, by complaint dated March 15, 1968, seeking an injunction enjoining Gary Skipper and others from closing the roads located upon the aforesaid premises and for monetary damages. It is further allleged that the roads in question are public roads leading to public lakes and the plaintiffs herein and the general public are entitled to the use and enjoyment of said roads and lakes as citizens and residents of Horry County and as members of the general public. It is also alleged that the general public has used said roads for more than one hundred years and that the plaintiffs have used said roads openly, notoriously and adversely for a period of more than twenty years. It is then alleged that the lessees and the owners of the lands in question have placed chains or cables across these roads, thereby obstructing the use of same by the plaintiffs and the general public. Two of the plaintiffs allege that the tires on their respective automobiles were damaged when they were using said roads as a result of spikes being deliberately placed in the ruts of said road.
The defendants demurred to the aforesaid complaint on the ground that it appeared that several causes of action had been improperly united therein. The demurrer was sustained on the ground that the complaint states a cause of action on behalf of the general public asking for a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from barricading or closing the aforesaid roads and a cause of action for damages to the automobiles of two of the plaintiffs. In the order sustaining the demurrer the plaintiffs were accorded the right to file an amended complaint.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, dated April 16, 1969, in which they alleged a prescriptive right to use certain roads located upon the lands hereinbefore referred to, and by reason of the obstructions placed across said roads, the plaintiffs have suffered irreparable injury and damage and have been denied the use of said roads and lakes, which they have the lawful right to use, and this court should require the defendants to refrain from blocking said roads or interfering in any way with the use thereof by the plaintiffs and the general public. The plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to remove the chains and cables which they had placed across these roads, thereby obstructing their use; the plaintiffs also ask for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from placing any further obstructions in said roads or from interfering in any way with the use and enjoyment of said roads or lakes by the plaintiffs or the general public.
The defendants, by their answers, denied the material allegations of the complaint and affirmatively allege that Georgia-Pacific Corporation and Pee Dee Farms Corporation are the owners in the aggregate of the 30,000 acres of land referred to in the complaint and that the said owners and their predecessors in title have a record fee simple title to said property and have been in the exclusive possession thereof for more than forty years. It is then alleged that the plaintiffs have trespassed upon said property by entering thereon and destroying the barricades and cables placed across the roads located upon said premises, and because of such trespasses, the owners of the land have suffered irreparable damage and have no adequate remedy at law therefor and are entitled to an order enjoining the plaintiffs from trespassing upon said lands. The owners admit the granting of hunting rights on the aforesaid premises to Gary Skipper and others.
A compulsory order of reference was granted by the court on September 10, 1969, on motion of the defendants, and over the objection of the plaintiffs, referring this cause to the Master for Horry County, for the purpose of taking the testimony and reporting his findings of law and fact. In due time the plaintiffs filed notice of intention to appeal from said order of September 10, 1969, and served upon the attorneys for the defendants a proposed case and exceptions. The defendants, in due time, filed notice of exceptions to the proposed statement of the plaintiffs' case and submitted a proposed revised statement. Thereupon, plaintiffs' attorneys served the defendants' attorneys with a notice of motion to amend the complaint and further that the plaintiffs would move for disallowance of the proposed amended statement on appeal, made by the defendants.
This matter came on to be heard by the Honorable John Grimball, Presiding Judge, and resulted in an order, dated December 12, 1969, fixing the proposed statement upon appeal, substituting an attorney as special referee, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint, subject to the order of reference issued on September 10, 1969. The defendants, in due time, served a notice of intention to appeal from so much of the aforesaid order allowing the plaintiffs to amend their amended complaint of April 16, 1969.
The plaintiffs, by their exceptions, assert that the trial judge erred in granting a compulsory order of reference in violation of their right to a trial by jury upon the ground that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jowers v. Hornsby, 22735
...or equitable, depending on the relief sought as interpreted by the court from the "main purpose" of the complaint. Gore v. Skipper, 255 S.C. 18, 176 S.E.2d 569 (1970); Smith v. Haymond, 135 W.Va. 638, 64 S.E.2d 105 (1951). See also Collins Music Company, Inc. v. Lightsey, 285 S.C. 108, 328 ......
-
Smith v. Squires Timber Co.
...whether Smith was a statutory employee of Brown was not raised and ruled on below, and thus not preserved for review. Gore v. Skipper, 255 S.C. 18, 176 S.E.2d 569 (1970). Respondent's Form 52 claim for workers' compensation benefits alleged that Smith was an employee of Brown. In our view, ......
-
Fuller v. Hemby, 21184
...Court considers the main purpose of the complaint to determine whether the action is of an equitable or legal nature. Gore v. Skipper, 255 S.C. 18, 176 S.E.2d 569 (1970). If the thrust of the action is one at law, the lower court is limited by the "clear and explicit language" of Section 15......
-
Bledsoe v. Metts
...before us for decision for the reason that the record does not disclose that it was made or decided in the court below. Gore v. Skipper, 255 S.C. 18, 176 S.E.2d 569. However, it is our conclusion that the certificate of the attorney for the respondent was in substantial compliance with Rule......