Little v. Little, No. 16227.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtSTUKES, Justice
Citation53 S.E.2d 884
PartiesLITTLE. v. LITTLE et al.
Decision Date02 June 1949
Docket NumberNo. 16227.

53 S.E.2d 884

LITTLE.
v.
LITTLE et al.

No. 16227.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 2, 1949.


Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; L. D. Lide, Judge.

Action by Julian Little against James W. Little to recover damages for an enjoined trespass on certain land, in which Lila W. Little was subsequently made a defendant and prayed cancellation of her deed to plaintiff. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

[53 S.E.2d 885]

J. A. Knight, Chesterfield, John D. Nock, Cheraw, for appellant.

James E. Leppard and William P. Gul-ledge, Chesterfield, for respondent.

STUKES, Justice.

The respondent, Mrs. Lila W. Little, is the mother of the other parties to this action. At the instance of still another son she consulted a tax accountant in December 1942 who advised her that she might avoid or minimize inheritance taxes by making gifts to her children and the exemption that year was $4000 to each child which he warned would be decreased to $3000 the next year. From this advisor she went to the office of C. P. Laney, an attorney now deceased, and employed and instructed him to prepare several deeds to various of her children, including that in controversy in this litigation, carefully telling him what property to put in each deed. Mr. Laney told her that it would be next day before the deeds could be completed and she returned as told on December 31, 1942, and executed the deeds. She thereupon took them to the Clerk of Court at Chesterfield who recorded them as of that day. That to plaintiff-appellant was dated December 30, 1942, recited consideration of $5 and love and affection and conveyed in fee the following:

"All that certain piece, parcel or tract of land in the above state and county, and being a part of the Lila W. Little home plantation, containing fifty (50) acres, more or less, and being bounded as follows: On the North by lands of George T. Little; on the East by the right-of-way of the Atlantic R. R. Co., which Railroad separates said lands from other lands of grantor; on the South by lands of Campbell P. Laney, Jr., and on the West by further side of woods adjoining Laney line as far as woods extend, thence continuing in a Northern direction over cultivated area, parallel to said Railroad to George T. Little line."

Other deeds executed and recorded simultaneously with the above were to other children of the grantor, as follows: To George T. Little, an undivided one-half interest in 235 acres; to J. W. Little, all grantor's right, title and interest in 812 acres (shown by other evidence to be an undivided one-sixth interest); and to Ada Herrmann, an undivided one-half interest in the timber upon two tracts of 35 acres and 20 acres. Shortly thereafter, but in the next tax year, on January 30, 1943, Mrs. Little conveyed to Julian Little, appellant, an additional 50 acres east of the railroad; and on the same date to J. W. Little another and separate tract of 50 acres. Finally (so far as the record shows) on December 9, 1944, she conveyed an additional 42 acres to Julian, the appellant. (These other deeds are not denied.)

He, unmarried, lived at the family homestead with his mother and even slept in the same room, before the conveyance, continuously afterward and until the time of trial. She was a large farmer but decided in the fall of 1942 to discontinue operations and notified her sons who are the other parties to this action that they could take over and operate the home place, from which there was carved the acreage now in dispute. James W. Little declined at that time, being otherwise engaged in extensive farm operations, so Julian at once took over and operated the entire home place, which contained about 300 arable acres. Mrs. Little gave him livestock and farm equipment, including tractors and other implements. He paid no rent and annually paid the taxes which, however, were assessed in her name, as before. He also repaired the buildings. This arrangement continued until 1947 when appellant's brother, James W., decided to farm half of the home place and a difference immediately arose between him and appellant as to the location of the boundary between appellant's acreage described in the questioned deed, on the west or southwest, and other lands of Mrs. Little.

Appellant then employed an engineer to survey and plat the land described in the deed, description copied above. When notified of this Mrs. Little sought out the surveyor on the land and told him to disregard the deed description with reference to the disputed line and run the latter in accord with her direction, which resulted in an acreage of 40.5. Appellant was dis-

[53 S.E.2d 886]

satisfied with this and had the engineer survey the line and prepare a plat in accord with the description in the deed and this resulted in 70.9 acres which the engineer certified on the plat to be, "Map of land prepared for Julian Little. Content 70.9 acres. Situate in Chesterfield County, S. C, located by deed recorded in Chesterfield Court House * * *." After the survey appellant returned the land separately for taxes in his name.

Action was brought on March 23, 1948, by Julian Little as plaintiff against his brother, James W. Little, defendant, upon a complaint in which it was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Little v. Little, No. 16739
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 4 Maggio 1953
    ...for respondent. [223 S.C. 334] BAKER, Chief Justice. This case was previously before this Court. See Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. There, an order of the Circuit Court holding that the deed to the plaintiff of the premises involved in this action was invalid for nondelivery,......
  • Donnan v. Mariner, No. 3144.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 3 Aprile 2000
    ...v. Cunningham, 16 S.C. 631 (1882) (issue of effective delivery of a deed is for the jury). To the extent Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884 (1949), can be construed that an action to set aside a deed for lack of delivery is a matter in equity, we distinguish Little. In Little, the......
  • Austin-Griffith v. Goldberg, AUSTIN-GRIFFIT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 21 Dicembre 1953
    ...We have, therefore, determined the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidence. Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. The order of the Circuit Court is modified by allowing the owners a further credit for liquidated damages in the sum of $4,900, thereby ma......
  • Gilbert v. McLeod Infirmary, No. 16472
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 Marzo 1951
    ...by jury. Recent decisions [219 S.C. 185] thereon are Bates v. Bates, 213 S.C. 26, 43 S.E.2d 612, and Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. The eleemosynary nature of the Infirmary corporation has been mentioned. 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia of the law of Corporations (Perm. Ed.) 189, Sec. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Little v. Little, No. 16739
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 4 Maggio 1953
    ...for respondent. [223 S.C. 334] BAKER, Chief Justice. This case was previously before this Court. See Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. There, an order of the Circuit Court holding that the deed to the plaintiff of the premises involved in this action was invalid for nondelivery,......
  • Donnan v. Mariner, No. 3144.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 3 Aprile 2000
    ...v. Cunningham, 16 S.C. 631 (1882) (issue of effective delivery of a deed is for the jury). To the extent Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884 (1949), can be construed that an action to set aside a deed for lack of delivery is a matter in equity, we distinguish Little. In Little, the......
  • Austin-Griffith v. Goldberg, AUSTIN-GRIFFIT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 21 Dicembre 1953
    ...We have, therefore, determined the facts in accordance with our view of the preponderance of the evidence. Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. The order of the Circuit Court is modified by allowing the owners a further credit for liquidated damages in the sum of $4,900, thereby ma......
  • Gilbert v. McLeod Infirmary, No. 16472
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 9 Marzo 1951
    ...by jury. Recent decisions [219 S.C. 185] thereon are Bates v. Bates, 213 S.C. 26, 43 S.E.2d 612, and Little v. Little, 215 S.C. 52, 53 S.E.2d 884. The eleemosynary nature of the Infirmary corporation has been mentioned. 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia of the law of Corporations (Perm. Ed.) 189, Sec. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT