Haithcock v. Haithcock

• Citation: 115 S.E. 727,123 S.C. 61
• Decision Date: 18 January 1923
• Docket Number: 11103.
• Parties: HAITHCOCK v. HAITHCOCK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

115 S.E. 727

123 S.C. 61

HAITHCOCK v. HAITHCOCK.

No. 11103.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 18, 1923

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Edward McIver, Judge.

The following is the judge's charge to the jury:

This case has taken a good long while for trial, and, inasmuch as it has been very vigorously and very earnestly tried, you are perhaps somewhat confused in your own minds as to what are the distinct issues in this case that you are to pass on.

Now, if you will try to give me your close attention for a few minutes, I will try to make it plain to you what is the exact situation in this case, and what is the law applicable to the case as made out.

When two parties have a difference of opinion over the possession of property, and they cannot adjust it, and one of them comes into court to enforce what he claims to be his right, the law requires that he set out in a written paper, which is called the complaint, his cause of action-- that is set out his grievance--his complaint, and his prayer to the jury to grant him the relief asked for. The defendant then is required to come by an answer and set up his side of the case, his objection to the plaintiff's cause of action his answer to the grievance. Those two papers, the complaint on the part of the plaintiff and the answer on the part of the defendant, raise the issue or issues that are submitted to a jury for their determination.

Now what are the issues in this case?

The plaintiff, M. H. Haithcock, comes in and says in his complaint that he is the owner of a certain tract of land in Richland county, containing 37 acres, which he specifically describes in his complaint. He alleges that about the first of March, 1917, the defendant, W. G. Haithcock, took that land out of his possession forcibly, and claims it as his own, and he asks you to decree that the land is his, in order to be given back to him, with such damage as he may have sustained by reason of the alleged unlawful taking of his land.

Now that is the plaintiff's side of the case.

Now the defendant, by way of answer, comes in and denies each and every allegation of the complaint; that is, he puts the plaintiff to the proof of his case. He denies that it is the plaintiff's land, or that he has forcibly taken possession of any land of the plaintiff, but alleges, on the other hand, that the land is his.

Then, in addition to that, he sets up what is called in law the plea of the statute of limitations, which is that he alleges that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessors nor grantors have been in possession of that land for 10 years before the beginning of this action, and that therefore his claim is barred by the statute of limitations. I will explain that to you a little later. That is one of his affirmative pleas.

He further sets forth that he himself has been in the actual, open, hostile, and notorious possession of that 37-acre tract of land for 10 years, and that that, under the law of this state, gives him title to the land.

Then he pleads that he has been in possession of that land for as much as 20 years, and that under that plea, that under that state of facts, the law presumes everything to have been done that was necessary to be done to give him title to the land.

So he denies, in the first place, the title to the plaintiff. He also pleads that the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations. Then affirmatively he alleges that he has been in possession for 10 years, under the law of adverse possession, and that he also has been in possession for 20 or more years, and that the possession of land for 20 or more years presumes a grant in him from the state.

Now, as I say, I will try to explain all that to you more fully as we go into the consideration of the law of the case.

Now, gentlemen, that raises the issue between the parties as to whose land this 37 acres is. The facts of this case, as of every case, are for the jury alone. The court has nothing to do with the facts of any case that is being tried. The court can only charge you the law applicable to the case as made out. The jury must find the facts, independently, for themselves. And so zealous have our lawmakers been that the jury shall not be influenced by any intimation of any opinion on the part of the court as to what the facts are, that the judge is not even allowed, under the law, to narrate the facts of the particular case, or to express any opinion whatsoever on them, or even to state the evidence in any way as applicable to the law that he announces. The judge can only give to the jury in its abstract form the law that is applicable to cases of this kind. The jury must then find the facts for themselves, from the evidence, and apply the facts to the law as given them by the court, and arrive at their conclusion.

Now, gentlemen, you are bound to pass on and find what the facts of this particular case are. You are equally bound, under your oaths, to take the law from me as I give it to you. Whether I am right or wrong, you have nothing to do with that question. You are bound to take the law from me as I give it to you.

You cannot reverse or change the law as I give it to you, but you must take it from me, and if I make a mistake, then the law has provided another tribunal that can correct any errors of law that I may make.

Now, gentlemen, I charge you that when a person comes into court and states his grievance, and asks relief from a jury, and asks that the jury give him something from the other side, he assumes the burden of proving that he is entitled to that relief. And naturally so, for before a man can ask you to give him something from another man, he must satisfy you by the preponderance or greater weight of the testimony that he is entitled to what he asks you to give him. In other words, he assumes the burden of proving to your satisfaction by the preponderance or greater weight of the testimony that he is entitled to the relief he asks for. The burden of proof, then, is on the plaintiff to satisfy you--not, as on the other side of the court, beyond a reasonable doubt--but to satisfy you by the preponderance or greater weight of the testimony, that he is right; and unless the plaintiff satisfies you of that by the greater weight of the testimony, then of course he has failed to make out his case, and cannot recover.

Now, what do we mean by the preponderance or greater weight of the testimony? It does not mean the greater number of witnesses. Witnesses weigh; they do not count in number. It has been illustrated in the law books by the comparison of the old-fashion scales or weights or balances; the testimony for the plaintiff being on one side, and the testimony for the defendant being on the other. The law requires the plaintiff to put on his side of the scales enough evidence to outweigh--however small, however so little--but to outweigh that on the part of the defendant's side of the scales. And that is what is meant by the preponderance of the evidence; that the plaintiff must establish his case by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence; that is, he must make his side of the case outweigh, however little it may be, the side on the part of the defendant.

Now, gentlemen, the defendant, in addition to denying the plaintiff's right and putting him on proof, putting on him the burden of making out his case, has set up some affirmative defenses; and where the defendant sets up an affirmative defense, then he assumes the burden of establishing that affirmative defense by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

Now, one of his affirmative defenses is the statute of limitations. He must make out, by the greater weight of the evidence, that defense before it can be said to be established. Now, what do we mean by the statute of limitations? The law provides that if a man, owning a piece of property, which he may have an absolute legal title for, if he stays out of possession, does not exercise any act of ownership or right or claim to that property for a period of 10 years, and allows some one else to go in and take and occupy and use that property continuously for 10 years, why, then, the law says to him that, "having stayed out of the possession of your property, having failed to assert any claim to it for 10 years, you are barred by the statute from now coming in and establishing your title." That is what is called the statute of limitations.

The defendant also sets up the plea of adverse possession, which means that he claims that he has been in the actual, open, hostile, continuous, and notorious possession of the land in dispute for 10 years, and that, under the law, having been in such possession of the property for 10 years, the law gives him title to the property. That is what adverse possession means. It is a statute of repose. It is a statute passed by the Legislature for the purpose of quieting title, that where a man has been in the actual, open, notorious, exclusive, and hostile possession of a piece of land for 10 years, claiming it as his own, the law says it will not interfere in the question whether he had good title when he went into possession or not, but, having remained in possession, open, notorious, and hostile to all the world, for that length of time, the law says that establishes title by adverse possession.

The defendant also sets up a plea of grant from the state by presumption; in other words, he sets up the contention that he has been in the open, notorious, and adverse possession of this tract for 20 years, and that the law, after such possession for 20 years, will presume that everything that was necessary to do to give him a good title has been done and that he will have a title by presumption of a...