Patterson v. Crenshaw

• Decision Date: 17 April 1890
• Citation: 11 S.E. 390,32 S.C. 534
• Parties: PATTERSON et al. v. CRENSHAW et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

11 S.E. 390

32 S.C. 534

PATTERSON et al. v. CRENSHAW et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 17, 1890

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Kershaw county; HUDSON judge.

W. D Trantham and Wylie & Wylie, for appellants.

John C Haskell and R. E. & R. B. Allison, for respondents.

MCGOWAN J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs, heirs at law of Wyatt Patterson, deceased, against the defendants, who held under Wiley Patterson, his brother, for a large tract of land in Lancaster county. The lands consist of four separate adjoining tracts, known by the names of their former owners respectively, and in all aggregating 1,760 acres. One Wyatt Patterson had possession of all of them, acquired at different times, and under various circumstances, but, for the most part, without taking paper titles for the same. The defendants denied title in the plaintiff, and claiming that they or Wiley Patterson, under whom they claimed, had been in possession of the lands for 16 years, set up title by adverse possession and the statute of limitations. The main questions in the case were, as to the ownership of Wyatt Patterson, the character of Wiley Patterson's possession, and whether both parties traced title to a common source. The plaintiffs introduced a mass of parol testimony, which is all in the brief, just as it was delivered on the stand; but, as no rule of survey in the case had been ordered, there was no plat showing the exact metes and bounds of the different tracts, or of the whole body, and the evidence upon the subject of location was not clear. Upon the close of the plaintiff's testimony the defendants moved for a nonsuit, which was granted, principally, on the ground that "the land was not sufficiently located to enable the jury to find a verdict for the land, or any part of it." The judge said: "Of the 1,760 acres, there is evidence enough to go to the jury upon the presumption of a grant as to the Bailey tract of 940 acres, and the Clark tract of 100 acres; but, unfortunately for the plaintiffs, they have not a particle of evidence to show where the 940 acres is located in reference to the balance of the 1,760 acres, nor where the 100 acres of the Clark land is located. It would be impossible, therefore, in this action, for the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiffs for any portion of this land, unless the portion of the land is located, so that the recovery would enable the plaintiffs to enter upon and take possession of the specific part recovered. It is always unsafe to go into these land suits without surveys, and this suit is clearly one which a previous survey could have furnished us sufficient information to allow the jury to render a verdict. Under the existing state of the evidence, there is, then, in my...