Lyles v. Roach

• Decision Date: 07 March 1889
• Citation: 30 S.C. 291,9 S.E. 334
• Parties: Lyles v. Roach et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

9 S.E. 334

(30 S.C. 291)

Lyles

v.Roach et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 7, 1889.

Adverse Possession—Amendment of Statute.

1. Where, at the time adverse possession of land begins, the statute of limitations is 20 years, that statute governs the case, notwithstanding an act passed a year later provides (without using any retroactive words) that actions to recover land must be brought within 10 years.

2. The time when the adverse possession commenced being in dispute, the court erred in assuming that defendant was not in adverse possession before the enactment of the new statute of limitations, and in charging that, therefore, the new statute governed. The question was one of fact for the jury.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court, Richland county; Kershaw, Judge.

Ejectment by Joseph Lyles against Alice Roach and her husband, J. M. Roach. Verdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Robert A. Lynch, for appellant. Andrew Crawford, for respondents.

Simpson, C. J. In 1872 the defendants took possession of the land in dispute, which at that time belonged to plaintiff's father, and they have held possession ever since. In 1872, at the time this possession was taken by the defendants, the limitation in reference to the recovery of real property was as follows: No action for such purpose could be maintained, unless it should appear that the plaintiff, his ancestor, predecessor, or grantor, was seised or possessed of the premises within 20 years before the commencement of such action. Section 101 of original Code. And in section 104, same Code, it was provided that in such action the person establishing a legal title to the prem ises should be presumed to have been in possession thereof within the time required by the law, and the occupation of such premises by any other person should be deemed to have been under and in subordination to the legal title, unless it appear that such premises have been held and possessed adversely to such legal title for 20 years before the commencement of such action. Construing these sections together, the meaning must have been that, to defeat the recovery of the plaintiff in such cases, the defendant was required to prove 20 years' adverse possession before the commencement of the action. And although the plaintiff could not recover unless it appeared that he or his ancestor, etc., had been in possession within that period, yet proof of title on his part presumed that; which was good until defendant, although he had been in possession for the 20 years, proved that said possession was adverse for said time. Only so much of the possession as was proved to be adverse could count as part of the 20 years required. In November, 1873, the act above was amended by reducing the time to 10 years, instead of 20, with the same provision, however, as to title in plaintiff presuming possession within the 10 years, and the necessity of the defendant proving adverse possession for 10 years before action brought in order to overthrow this presumption. So that, in brief, the law of force before 1873 required the defendant to prove, not simply 20 years' possession, but 20 years' adverse possession; and the law since 1873, and which is now of force, requires adverse possession of 10 years only before action brought. Now, as we have stated, the defendants went into possession in 1872, while the old act was of force, holding possession about a year, when the act of 1873 was passed; their possession continuing until up to this time. The plaintiff's father died in 1884, leaving the plaintiff, as one of his heirs, entitled to one-fourth of his estate; and the action below was brought under the above state of facts to recover said one-fourth of the land. His honor, the circuit judge, held that the act of 1873 applied to the case, and he charged that, if defendants had proved to the satisfaction of the jury adverse possession for 10 years before the action was brought, they were entitled to the verdict. The verdict was for the defendants. The question in the appeal is, was his honor correct in his ruling above? Or should he have held that the old act applied? Plaintiff's father died in 1884, and defendants having been in possession since 1873, and more than 10 years intervening between 1873 and 1884, if that possession was adverse, and the act of 1873 applied, defendants were...