Horry County v. Laychur, No. 23892
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY; HARWELL |
| Citation | 315 S.C. 364,434 S.E.2d 259 |
| Decision Date | 06 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23892 |
| Parties | HORRY COUNTY, A Body Politic, Appellant, v. William LAYCHUR, Respondent. . Heard |
Page 259
v.
William LAYCHUR, Respondent.
Decided July 12, 1993.
Page 260
[315 S.C. 366] David J. Gundling, of Thompson, Henry, Gwin, Brittain & Stevens, P.A., Pawleys Island, for appellant.
Kenneth S. Corbett and William Edward Chrisco, Myrtle Beach, for respondent.
FINNEY, Associate Justice.
Horry County appeals a circuit court judgment and finding which excludes from public use a portion of Respondent William Laychur's property known as Reaves Ferry. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.
Reaves Ferry, which borders on the Waccamaw River and has been used by the general public for approximately 100 years, was included in a tract of land respondent purchased from International Paper Realty Corporation (International Paper) on May 4, 1989. Subsequently, respondent attempted to restrict the public's use of Reaves Ferry. The appellant instituted this action seeking to have the respondent temporarily and permanently enjoined from denying the public free use of and access to Reaves Ferry, asserting the rights of prescriptive easement and/or expressed or implied
Page 261
dedication. The circuit court issued a temporary injunction on August 2, 1990. The case was tried before a jury August 5-7, 1991, and the jury returned a verdict for the respondent. This appeal followed.The appellant asserts that the trial judge erred (1) in failing to grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the [315 S.C. 367] verdict on the issues of prescriptive easement and dedication; (2) in failing to give a corrective charge on the law of dedication with regard to acquiescence of the property owner; and (3) in permitting International Paper to present trial testimony concerning its general policy.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Appellant contends it was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict in that the evidence did not support the jury's finding that no easement had been acquired under the doctrine of prescription nor had a dedication occurred. We disagree.
When considering a motion for directed verdict or judgment non obstante veredicto, the trial judge must view the evidence and all inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the evidence is susceptible of more than one reasonable inference, the case should be submitted to the jury. Orders Distributing Co., Inc. v. Newsome Carpets & Wallcovering, --- S.C. ----, 418 S.E.2d 550 (1992); Unlimited Services, Inc., v. Macklen Enterprises, Inc., 303 S.C. 384, 401 S.E.2d 153 (1991). The factual findings of a jury should not be disturbed unless a review of the record discloses no evidence which reasonably supports such findings. Orders Distributing Co., Inc., v. Newsome Carpets & Wallcovering, supra; Graham v. Whitaker, 282 S.C. 393, 321 S.E.2d 40 (1984).
The following prerequisites must be met to establish a right by prescription: (1) There must be continued and uninterrupted use or enjoyment of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sims v. Giles, No. 3291.
...Getsinger v. Midlands Orthopaedic Profit Sharing Plan, 327 S.C. 424, 489 S.E.2d 223 (Ct.App.1997). See also Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993)(directed verdict should not be granted unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the In deciding whether to g......
-
Burns v. Universal Health Services, Inc., No. 3869.
...of a jury unless a review of 361 S.C. 232 the record discloses no evidence which reasonably supports them. Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993); Force v. Richland Mem'l Hosp., 322 S.C. 283, 471 S.E.2d 714 (Ct.App.1996). In making this determination, the judge must vi......
-
Howard, Matter of, No. 23891
...in 1984. He did not list the gun in the written claim filed with Edward Howard's estate; and he made no claim against the estate for [315 S.C. 364] the gun in the probate court. The estate neither has possession of the gun nor asserts any interest in The jurisdiction of the probate court ex......
-
Bundy v. Shirley, Appellate Case No. 2013–001263.
...easement until the claimant makes a distinct and positive assertion of right hostile to the landowner); Horry Cnty. v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993) (holding evidence, which established that use of property was permissive, showed use of property was not adverse); Williamson, ......
-
Sims v. Giles, No. 3291.
...Getsinger v. Midlands Orthopaedic Profit Sharing Plan, 327 S.C. 424, 489 S.E.2d 223 (Ct.App.1997). See also Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993)(directed verdict should not be granted unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the In deciding whether to g......
-
Burns v. Universal Health Services, Inc., No. 3869.
...of a jury unless a review of 361 S.C. 232 the record discloses no evidence which reasonably supports them. Horry County v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993); Force v. Richland Mem'l Hosp., 322 S.C. 283, 471 S.E.2d 714 (Ct.App.1996). In making this determination, the judge must vi......
-
Howard, Matter of, No. 23891
...in 1984. He did not list the gun in the written claim filed with Edward Howard's estate; and he made no claim against the estate for [315 S.C. 364] the gun in the probate court. The estate neither has possession of the gun nor asserts any interest in The jurisdiction of the probate court ex......
-
Bundy v. Shirley, Appellate Case No. 2013–001263.
...easement until the claimant makes a distinct and positive assertion of right hostile to the landowner); Horry Cnty. v. Laychur, 315 S.C. 364, 434 S.E.2d 259 (1993) (holding evidence, which established that use of property was permissive, showed use of property was not adverse); Williamson, ......