Lynch v. Lynch

• Citation: 115 S.E.2d 301,236 S.C. 612
• Decision Date: 21 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. 17686,17686
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: Esther LYNCH, Respondent, v. Lolie H. LYNCH, Foster M. Lynch, Jr. and C. Wulbern Lynch, Appellants.

Page 301

115 S.E.2d 301

236 S.C. 612

Esther LYNCH, Respondent, v. Lolie H. LYNCH, Foster M. Lynch, Jr. and C. Wulbern Lynch, Appellants.

No. 17686.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 21, 1960.

Royall & Wright, John M. Scott, Florence, for appellants.

McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, Florence, for respondent.

MOSS, Justice.

This is an action of trespass to try title, instituted by Esther Lynch, the respondent herein, against Lolie H. Lynch, Foster M. Lynch, Jr. and C. Wulbern Lynch, the appellants herein. The complaint alleges that the respondent is the owner for life of a tract of land located in Florence County, South Carolina, and that the appellants have trespassed upon a portion thereof, such being a small area containing 4.82 acres, of what is known as the Steele tract. The appellants denied title in the respondent and set up title in themselves by adverse possession and prescription. The answer further denied possession of the respondent, or her predecessor in title, within ten years before the institution of this action.

This case was tried before the Honorable T. B. Greneker, Presiding Judge, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the respondent. At appropriate stages of the trial, motions for a nonsuit, directed verdict, and judgment non obstante veredicto, and alternatively for a new trial, were made and denied by the trial Judge. This appeal followed.

The appellants and the respondent all claim through J. C. Lynch, who, at one time, owned a goodly portion of Florence County.

It appears from the record that on May 18, 1920, J. C. Lynch, reserving a life estate in himself, executed and delivered a deed to his son, F. M. Lynch, conveying a tract of land containing 519 1/2 acres. This said tract of land is more fully described upon a plat of same made by E. J. Smith, Surveyor, of date April 10, 1920, which said plat is of record in the office of the Clerk of Court for Florence County, South Carolina, in Plat Book B, at page 182. The aforesaid deed was recorded in Deed Book 36, at page 776, in said Clerk's office. It appears that the deed and the plat were both recorded on May 21, 1920. The record reveals that F. M. Lynch died on January 9, 1955, and the aforesaid tract of land descended to the appellants.

It appears from the record that on December 4, 1930, J. C. Lynch, reserving a life estate in himself, executed and delivered a deed to his son, Troy J. Lynch, conveying, along with other property, a tract of land containing 20 acres, known as the Jordan lands, and also a tract of land containing 99 acres, known as the Steele land. This deed was recorded in the office of the Clerk of Court for Florence County, South Carolina, on December 8, 1930, in Deed Book 12, at page 257. Troy J. Lynch died testate on January 13, 1956, and devised a life estate in these two tracts of land to his widow, the respondent herein.

The testimony shows that J. C. Lynch, the predecessor in title to the lands in question, died April 17, 1934. His death, of course, extinguished the life estate reserved by him in the deeds made to his respective sons.

It was agreed that if Troy J. Lynch had title to the disputed area containing 4.82 acres at the time of his death, that the respondent, under his will, has a life estate therein; and if F. M. Lynch owned the property, that the appellants, as his only heirs, inherited his interest. It is also admitted that the land deeded by J. C. Lynch to Troy J. Lynch and F. M. Lynch adjoins, and the real equestion for determination by the Court is what constitutes the correct property line between these tracts of land. The appellants admit that the disputed area is not included in the deed from J. C. Lynch to F. M. Lynch, and that such property is outside the boundary of the plat made by E. J. Smith, Surveyor, and referred to in said deed and made a part thereof by reference.

It is undisputed that on February 5, 1907, that Frazier Miles conveyed to J. C. Lynch a tract of land containing 105 1/2 acres. This deed is recorded in Deed Book W, at page 361, Clerk of Court's Office for Florence County, South Carolina. A plat of the Frazier Miles tract of land, made by E. J. Smith, Surveyor, on November 2, 1906, is recorded in the Clerk of Court's Office for Florence County, South Carolina, in Plat Book B, at page 181, under Foster (F. M.) Lynch's name. The Frazier Miles tract of land adjoins and is just south of the Steele tract of land, which said tract was conveyed to Troy J. Lynch by J. C. Lynch, as is above recited. The Frazier Miles tract of land, containing 105 1/2 acres, is the nothern portion of the tract of 519 1/2 acres conveyed by J. C. Lynch to F. M. Lynch. Therefore, the northern boundary of the F. M. Lynch 519 1/2 acre tract is the southern boundary of the 99 acre Steele tract of land, conveyed by J. C. Lynch to Troy J. Lynch. In the deed of J. C. Lynch to Troy J. Lynch, conveying the Steele tract of land, it is recited that such tract is bounded on the 'South by lands of F. M. Lnch.' We point out that there was no plat to the Steele tract of land, but on December 14, 1955, a survey thereof was made by Ebert E. Floyd, a land surveyor. Subsequently, a plat was made by this surveyor. He testified that he had the benefit of the plat of the Frazier Miles tract of land, and the plat of the 519 1/2 acre tract. This surveyor established the line between the land of the respondent and the appellants according to the Frazier Miles plat and the plat of the 519 1/2 acres, the northern line of both plats being the same. The plats of the Frazier Miles tract of land, the 519 1/2 acre tract of land, and of the Steele tract of land were all offered in evidence.

The appellants offered as a witness A. L. Ervin, a Civil Engineer. He testified that he had made a plat of the disputed tract of land containing 4.82 acres. He testified that the northern boundary of the 519 1/2 acre tract was the same as the northern boundary of the Frazier Miles tract of land. He admitted that the northern boundary line of the 519 1/2 acre tract is the southern boundary line of the Steele tract, according to the Frazier Miles plat and the E. J. Smith plat of the 519 1/2 acre tract. He also admitted that he placed a corner and ran the lines where the appellant Foster M. (McGhan) Lynch, Jr. told him to place them. Typical of his testimony is the following:

'Q. You ran a line where Mr. McGhan Lynch told you to run it? A. Tht is right.'

* * *

* * *

'Q. The reason you put a corner there was because Mr. McGhan Lynch told you to put a corner? A. That is right.'

* * *

* * *

'Q. If you were given that deed that you just read and given this plat and told to go out and locate that land, this whole 519 1/2 acres of land, and you didn't have McGhan Lynch with you, and told to go out and locate that tract of land, would you have put that tract of land, in locating this tract of land by that plat, would you have put that 4.82 acres on your plat? A. No, sir.

'Q. The only reason you put it on there, as you testified to, was because McGhan Lynch told you to? A. Yes, sir.'

This witness admitted that the lines and corners established by the Floyd survey were correct. He was asked certain questions thereabout, and these questions and the answers of the witness are as follows:

'Q. Isn't Mr. Floyd's line correct with the Frazier Miles plat and the T. J. Smith plat? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. You ran the lines and found no difficulty? A. I found all the corners.

'Q. Whether any old corners, you found the line that verified it? A. I checked his lines and did not find anything wrong with them.

'Q. You found his lines were the same lines as shown by the Frazier Miles plat and as shown by the E. J. Smith plat? A. Yes.'

In an action of trespass to try title, the plaintiff, in proving title, need not go beyond a source from which both the defendant and plaintiff claim to derive title. Martin v. Ranlett, 39 S.C.L., 541, 5 Rich.L. 541, 57 Am.Dec. 770; Geiger v. Kaigler, 15 S.C. 262; Smythe v. Tolbert, 22 S.C. 133; Bradley v. Drayton, 48 S.C. 234, 26 S.E. 613; Thomas v. Dempsey, 53 S.C. 216, 31 S.E. 231. In the instant case, the respondent and the appellants both claim from J. C. Lynch.

It has also been held that in an action of trespass to try title, the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title. Warnock v. Wightman, 3 S.C.L. 331, 1 Brev. 331; Haughabaugh v. Honald, 5 S.C.L. 97, 3 Brev. 97, 5 Am.Dec. 548; Mazyck v. Birt, 4 S.C.L. 155, 2 Brev. 155.

The trial Judge held and charged the jury that the respondent had established paper or record title to the disputed area, which was a part of the Steele land. The appellants assert that this was error. It is clear that the respondent had a life estate in the Steele tract of land containing 99 acres. This was established by the deed from J. C. Lynch to Troy J. Lynch, and the Will of the said Troy J. Lynch, together with the plat prepared by the surveyor, Ebert E. Floyd. This evidence clearly placed the disputed tract within the paper title to the Steele tract. The deed to F. M. Lynch, the appellants' ancestor, conveyed 519 1/2 acres as is represented upon a plat of the same made by E. J. Smith, referred to in said deed. The appellants are bound by this plat so far as record title to the land is concerned, because they admit that the Smith plat does not include the disputed area. We think that under the evidence the trial Judge was correct in holding, as a matter of law, that the record title shows a life estate in the respondent to the Steele tract of land. Where a person proves legal title to real property, the person so proving the legal title is presumed to have been in possession of the land within ten years. Section 10-2421, 1952 Code of Laws of South Carolina; Love v. Turner, 71 S.C. 322, 51 S.E. 101; Stokes et al. v. Murray et al., 102 S.C. 395, 87 S.E. 71.

The appellants assert error on the part of the trial Judge in failing to direct a verdict in their favor based...