Harrelson v. Reaves

• Decision Date: 05 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. 16511,16511
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: , 43 A.L.R.2d 1 HARRELSON v. REAVES et al.

Page 478

65 S.E.2d 478

219 S.C. 394, 43 A.L.R.2d 1

HARRELSON v. REAVES et al.

No. 16511.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 5, 1951.

Eugene Hinson, J. C. Hooks, Mullins, L. B. Dawes, Loris, for appellant.

Richard Fields, Charleston, William B. James, Sumter, for respondent.

OXNER, Justice.

Dr. W. L. Reaves died on September 1, 1945. He left a will wherein he directed that his property be equally divided between his widow, Mrs. Leona P. Reaves, and his two daughters, Mrs. Grace R. Harrelson and Mrs. Hazel R. Rogers. This action was brought on November 25, 1946, by one of the daughters against her mother and sister to partition the real estate. On March 7, 1947, Henry C. Reaves was allowed to intervene as a party defendant. He duly filed an answer claiming title by adverse possession to a small portion of the large tract of land sought to be partitioned. Counsel agreed to an order of reference on all issues in the case except the claim made by Henry C. Reaves. That question was tried at the November, 1947, term of the Court of Common Pleas for Marion County and resulted in a verdict in his favor for the land in dispute.

At appropriate stages of the trial, counsel for the widow and two daughters, who held the record title to the land claimed by Henry C. Reaves, moved for a nonsuit, a directed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto. All of these motions were refused. From the judgment entered on the verdict of the jury, this appeal followed. The exceptions relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the claim of adverse possession and to the charge of the presiding Judge.

It appears that Dr. Reaves, in addition to practicing medicine, owned and operated a twelve or fourteen horse farm in Marion County. Respondent Henry C. Reaves, a Negro reared by the Reaves family, was born on this farm about 1891 and has since resided there. When a young boy he stayed in the home of Dr. Reaves and his mother. Dr. Reaves was then unmarried. The mother died about 1905. For three or four years prior to her death, she was a helpless paralytic. During this period Henry waited on her, sleeping on the same room, and did the cooking, washing and ironing. He received no compensation except his clothes and food.

Dr. Reaves married in 1914. About this time, Henry, who had then reached manhood, claims that Dr. Reaves gave him ten acres of woodland which was later cut off from the rest of the farm by a ditch around the entire ten acre tract. Three or four acres were cleared and the timber cut therefrom used to build a house which Henry says cost him five or six hundred dollars. He has since continuously lived in this house. Subsequently a few more acres were cleared and three or four other houses erected at a cost of approximately $400.00 each. These houses were constructed by Henry at odd times with the voluntary assistance of several others on the farm. After moving on the ten acre tract, Henry continued to work for Dr. Reaves first as a common laborer and later cultivated about thirty acres as a sharecropper. However, he never sharecropped any portion of the ten acre tract but retained all crops grown thereon. There is abundant testimony to the effect that for more than thirty years Henry has been in exclusive possession of the ten acre tract, using it as his own property, without any demand for rent or other compensation. One of the houses constructed on this tract was torn down by him without consultation with or objection by Dr. Reaves.

One of the white sharecroppers who worked for Dr. Reaves from 1904 to 1913 and from 1915 to 1926, testified that Dr. Reaves stated to him shortly after his return to the farm in 1915, that he had given the ten acre tract to Henry 'for waiting on his mother'. This witness further testified that the ten acre tract was considered as belonging to Henry. Of course, Henry was not permitted to testify as to any conversation had with Dr. Reaves.

The foregoing summary has been taken from the testimony offered by respondent. The testimony of appellants tended to show that Henry occupied the ten acre tract as a laborer or sharecropper and that the timber used in the construction of the houses thereon was cut from various portions of the farm owned by Dr. Reaves, who also furnished part of the labor. There was other testimony by appellants to the effect that the ten acre tract was included in a plat of approximately three hundred acres which Dr. Reaves had made in 1933; that several mortgages given by him in 1934 included this tract; that a right-of-way through this property was given by Dr. Reaves to the highway department in 1937; that a fire insurance policy taken out by Dr. Reaves in 1938 covered, among other buildings, the house occupied by Henry; and that Henry never returned the ten acre tract for taxation or paid any taxes thereon.

We shall first determine whether the evidence was sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury. In approaching a consideration of this question, it should be kept in mind that this is not an action to establish and enforce a parol gift of land. We had occasion to consider that subject in the recent case of Knight et al. v. Stroud, et al., 214 S.C. 437, 53 S.E.2d 72. The basis of respondent's claim is that there was a parol gift of the ten acre tract which ripened into title by adverse possession.

It is well established in this state that a parol gift of land may ripen into title where accompanied by actual possession for the statutory period, with claim of ownership, and under such a gift the donee's possession is adverse from its inception. Sumner v. Murphy, 2 Hill 488, 27 Am.Dec. 397; McElwee v. Martin, 2 Hill 496; Golson v. Hook, 4 Strob. 23; Harvey v. Harvey, 26 S.C. 608, 2 S.E. 3; Lyles v. Fellers, 238 S.C. 31, 136 S.E. 13, 18. The authorities elsewhere are generally to the same effect. 1 Am.Jur., Adverse Possession, Section 49; 2 C.J.S., Adverse Possession, §§ 75 and 90. In Lyles v. Fellers, supra, the Court said: 'A parol gift is insufficient without adverse possession for 10 years. Person taking possession of land under a parol gift and thenceforward, holding it adversely for 10 years, acquires title to the same.'

An entry under a parol gift of land, though...