Lane v. McEachern, 18801
| Decision Date | 11 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18801,18801 |
| Citation | 251 S.C. 272,162 S.E.2d 174 |
| Parties | Hugh C. LANE, Respondent, v. Furman E. McEACHERN, Jr., Director of the Division of General Services, Budgetand Control Board, State of South Carolina, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Edward B. Latimer, Columbia, for appellant.
Buist, Buist, Smythe & Smythe, Young, Clement & Rivers, Charleston, for respondent.
At issue in this action for a declaratory judgment, instituted by the respondent Lane, is the title to a tract of land situated in Charleston County, such land being referred to in the record as 'The Property', title thereto being claimed by Lane and the State.
The Property is situated on the east side of the Edisto River (formerly known as Pon Pon or Pon Pond River), which at the point is a fresh water navigable river, but also tidal in that the water level is affected by the ebb and flow of the salt water tide in and out of the mouth of the river. The Property, in its natural state, was fresh water river swamp land adjacent to the channel of the river. It has been enclosed by banks since some time prior to the year 1794, and for many years was in use as a rice field. In more recent years it has been used for various agricultural purposes, including the pasturing of cattle, with a part thereof from time to time being flooded as a refuge for water fowl. The following is taken from the statement of the case:
'It is admitted that The Property is a part of a tract of 134 acres granted by King George II in 1734 to James Bullock, and that title is traceable in a direct and unbroken chain into plaintiff.'
The State asserts title to that portion of the foregoing tract lying below mean high water mark and prayed for an order enjoining plaintiff from trespassing upon such property and for an order requiring Lane to remove the earthen bank which has so long surrounded The Property.
The action was, by consent, tried before the Resident Judge of the Ninth Judicial Circuit upon a rather complete and detailed stipulation of facts. The appeal is from his order holding, on a number of grounds, that Lane has valid title to The Property, and that the State has no title thereto.
On May 24, 1734, George II, King of Great Britain, etc., of his 'Special Grace, certain Knowledge and mere Motion' granted to one James Bullock a tract of land, now situated in Charleston County and described in the grant as follows:
'All that parcel or tract of land containing one hundred and thirty-four acres situate, lying and being in Colleton County in the Province aforesaid butting and bounding to the northward on Will Town lots to the westward on Pon Pon River to the eastward on John Smyles land and to the southward on James Stoboes land.
'And hath such shape, form and marks, as appears by a plat thereof, hereunto annexed; * * *.'
The plat annexed to the grant shows that it is drawn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. State
...consisted of tidelands ... conclusively showed that the grant extended to the low water mark.") (emphasis added); Lane v. McEachern, 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E.2d 174 (1968) (finding the State's stipulated admission that the tidelands in question were within the perimeter of a plat annexed to a ......
-
State v. Hardee
...has recognized that tidelands are, in fact, subject to grant and private ownership as witnessed by the recent case of Lane v. McEachern, 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E.2d 174, and by the case of State v. Yelsen Land Co., 185 S.E.2d 897, decided this year, wherein it was held that in a controversy as......
-
State v. Griffith
...holdings, including tidelands, far exceeded the acreage called for in the grants themselves. Unlike the cases of Lane v. McEachern, 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E.2d 174 and Conch Creek Corporation v. Guess, 263 S.C. 211, 209 S.E.2d 560, the record here discloses no fact or circumstance whatever, ad......
-
State v. Holston Land Co., Inc.
...we need only consider two questions: (1) whether Holston's predecessors in title possessed a valid grant, See Lane v. McEachern, 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E.2d 174 (1968); and (2) whether the language of the grant is sufficient to convey land lying below the high water mark. See Conch Creek Corp.......