Jones v. Atl. Coast Dumber Corp.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FRASER |
| Citation | 75 S.E. 698,92 S.C. 418 |
| Parties | JONES . v. ATLANTIC COAST DUMBER CORPORATION et al. |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1912 |
75 S.E. 698
(92 S.C. 418)
JONES .
v.
ATLANTIC COAST DUMBER CORPORATION et al.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Sept. 17, 1912.
1. Logs and Logging (§ 3*) — Sales of Standing Timber—Failure to Cut—Estoppel.
Where a timber deed also conveyed to the grantee a right of way for a tramroad and a permanent road, the cutting of timber for the purpose of laying the tramroad was not a commencement of cutting on the timber contract; and the grantor, by failing to object to such cutting, or by participating therein, was not estopped to claim that by delay the grantee's rights under the timber contract had been lost.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Logs and Logging, Cent. Dig. §§ 6-12; Dec. Dig. § 3.*]
2 Injunction (§ 136*)—Temporary Injunction—Application—Questions Determinable.
In an action by a grantor of timber, who also conveyed to the grantee a right of way, to enjoin the cutting of timber, on the ground that the grantee had lost his rights by delay, where, on motion for a temporary injunction, the grantee showed that cutting had been commenced and that, notwithstanding the delay, the grantor had acquiesced and participated therein, while the grantor presented affidavits to show that such cutting was not under the timber contract, but for the purposes of the right of way, a question of fact was presented which should be determined on the trial, and which did not justify the denial of the injunction, since, in an action for an injunction, where a temporary injunction is essential to the preservation of a legal right, if established as alleged in the complaint, it is error to refuse the temporary injunction.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 305, 306; Dec. Dig. § 136.*]
3. Appeal and Error (§ 193*)—Necessity of Presentation of Questions Below.
An order granting a temporary injunction will not be reversed on the ground that the complaint is insufficient, where defendant did not question its sufficiency in the trial court, but merely moved to make it more definite and certain.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1226-1240; Dec. Dig. § 193.*]
4. Injunction (§ 118*)—Sales of Standing Timber — Actions on Contract — Complaint.
In an action to enjoin the cutting of timber, a complaint, alleging the making of a contract for the sale of the timber, the date and consideration thereof, the number of acres of timber, that more than 13 years had elapsed, and that the grantor had forfeited his rights by not cutting the timber within a reasonable time, was sufficiently definite and certain as to the facts and circumstances upon which plaintiff based his conclusion that a reasonable time for cutting the timber had expired, since it was sufficient to open the door to proof of the facts and circumstances surrounding the parties when the contract was made.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 223-242; Dec. Dig. § 118.*]
5. Pleading (§ 11*)—Form of Allegations-Ultimate and Fiduciary Facts.
While a complaint must contain a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, it need allege only the ultimate and not the evidentiary facts.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 31; Dec. Dig. § 11.*]
6. Pleading (§ 8*)—Form of Allegations-Facts or Conclusions.
An allegation of a mere conclusion of law is insufficient to raise an issue.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 12-28 1/2; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marion County; J. W. G. Shipp, Judge.
Action by J. W. Jones against the Atlantic Coast Lumber Corporation and another. From orders granting a temporary injunction and denying defendants' motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, the defendant named appeals. Affirmed.
Willcox & Willcox, of Florence, and M. C. Woods, of Marion, for appellant.
Mullins & Hughes and Henry Buck, all of Marion, for respondent
FRASER, J. This is an action for injunction and damages. The complaint alleges that on the 7th day of January, 1899, the plaintiff's grantor, David J. Atkinson, executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twin City Power Co v. Savannah River Electric Co, 13033.
...Crawford v. A. C. Lbr. Corp., 77 S. C. 81, 57 S. E. 670; Alderman v. Wilson, 69 S. C. 159, 48 S. E. 85; Jones v. Lbr. Corp., 92 S. C. 421, 75 S. E. 698; Ry. v. R. R., 88 S. C. 478, 479, 71 S. E. 39; Sizemore v. Jennings, 88 S. C. 248, 70 S. E.[161 S.E. 759] 726; Riley v. Union Station, 67 S......
-
Twin City Power Co. v. Savannah River Elec. Co., 13033.
...148; Crawford v. A. C. Lbr. Corp., 77 S.C. 81, 57 S.E. 670; Alderman v. Wilson, 69 S.C. 159, 48 S.E. 85; Jones v. Lbr. Corp., 92 S.C. 421, 75 S.E. 698; Ry. v. R. R., 88 S.C. 478, 479, 71 S.E. 39; Sizemore v. Jennings, 88 S.C. 248, 70 S.E. [161 S.E. 759] 726; Riley v. Union Station, 67 S.C. ......
-
Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
...Saluda v. Feaster, 87 S. C. 97, 68 S. E. 1045; Williams v. Carlson, 118 S. C. 46, 110 S. E. 69; Jones v. Atlantic Coast Line Lumber Co., 92 S. C. 418, 75 S. E. 698; Ragin v. N. W. Ry. Co., 111 S. C. 394, 98 S. E. 286; Cudd v. Rogers, 111 S. C. 507, 98 S. E. 796; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S......
-
Atl. Coast Line R. Co v. Baker, (No. 49.)
...156; Lumber Co. v. Tilghman, 55 S. E. 337, 75 S. C. 221; Ragsdale v. R. Co., 38 S. E. 609, 60 S. C. 681; Jones v. Atlantic Coast L. Corp., 75 S. E. 698, 92 S. C. 418; Strom v. American Co., 20 S. E. 16, 42 S. C. 101; Seabrook v. Mostowitz, 29 S. E. 202, 51 S. C. 434; Cudd v. Calvert, 32 S. ......