Jones v. Devereaux

• Decision Date: 06 March 1912
• Citation: 73 S.E. 1027,90 S.C. 513
• Parties: JONES v. DEVEREAUX.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

73 S.E. 1027

90 S.C. 513

JONES v. DEVEREAUX.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 6,1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by R. O. Jones against J. F. Devereaux. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Walter Green, for appellant. Frank G. Tompkins, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of the land described in the complaint, upon which the defendant has trespassed for which he demands damages, and seeks equitable relief by way of injunction to prevent further trespasses. The defendant answered the complaint, setting forth his sources of title, and claiming title by adverse possession. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff with damages and the defendant appealed upon exceptions, the first of which is as follows: "That his honor erred in admitting the testimony of G. McD. Hampton as to an alleged agreement between the defendant and one Mrs. Williams, the error being that the plaintiff was neither a party nor a privy to said agreement, said agreement not having been against the interest of defendant, and being an attempt to prove title by parol."

When the plaintiff's attorney offered to introduce the agreement in evidence, the defendant's attorney merely said, "I object," but did not interpose the grounds of objection mentioned in the exception. This exception is therefore overruled.

The second exception is as follows: "That his honor erred in admitting in evidence a plat of the lands of Mrs. Williams (Exhibit C), the same being no part of plaintiff's chain of title." The record contains this statement: "Mr Tompkins: We offer in evidence plat of Chisolm dated June, 1892, marked 'Exhibit D.' Mr. Green: I object; nothing to do with his chain of title. The Court: I cannot tell what papers are relevant, and what are not. When you go to discuss the evidence, after all the papers are in, you can then make your objections, and I will pass on them." The record fails to show that his honor the presiding judge was thereafter requested to rule upon said objection.

The third exception was not argued, and therefore will not be considered.

The fourth exception is as follows: "That his honor erred in charging the jury that the question at issue 'is what we call in law a question of location,' the error being the issue between plaintiff and defendant was the title to the land in dispute." In his argument the appellant's attorney says: "The paper title of plaintiff to the tract described in his deed was admitted, as was the title of the defendant to the tract described in his deed. *** The difference between plaintiff and defendant is the location of the Haskell corner." The respondent's attorney also admits in his argument that "the sole question in dispute was...