Perry v. Heirs at Law and Distributees of Gadsden
Decision Date | 06 September 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 24141,24141 |
Citation | 316 S.C. 224,449 S.E.2d 250 |
Parties | Alice A.G.G. PERRY, Emily Mitchell, Eliza Tremble, and Doris Green, Respondents, v. HEIRS AT LAW AND DISTRIBUTEES OF Charles GADSDEN, C.H. Gadsden, C.S. Gadsden, Louise Gadsden, Cain Gadsden, John Gadsden, Lula Nelson, Louis Gadsden, Herman Gadsden, Carrie Gadsden, Estella Gadsden, Mattie Gadsden, United States Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration, South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., Hazel Point Partnership, Luther Major, Martha Major, Queenie Taylor, Dolly Fripp, Beaufort-Jasper Comprehensive Health Services, Inc.; also, the following persons believed to be living: Cecil J. Gaston, Jr., a/k/a Cecil J. Gaston, Cornelius Gaston a/k/a Cornelius Gadsen, Herman Gaston, Lisa Roacher, Linda Mason, Herbert Mason, Willis Gaston, and Louise Gaston a/k/a Louise Gadson, and all heirs at law, devisees, or persons unknown claiming by, under or through any of the above-named persons, John Doe or Mary Roe being fictitious names designating a class of persons, or a legal entity, infants, incompetents, persons in the military service, if any, known or unknown, who may be an heir, distributee, devisee, issue, alienee, administrator, executor, creditor, successor or assign, having or claiming to have any right, title, interest, estate in or lien upon the real estate in or lien upon the real estate described in the complaint herein, Defendants, Of whom Cecil J. Gaston, Jr., is the Petitioner. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
James B. Richardson, Jr., of Svalina, Richardson & Smith, Columbia, for petitioner.
Gary D. Brown, Ridgeland, and C. Scott Graber, of Graber and Baldwin, Beaufort, for respondents.
Petitioner asks this Court for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeal's decision in Perry v. Heirs at Law & Distributees of Gadsden, --- S.C. ----, 437 S.E.2d 174 (Ct.App.1993). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, and affirm as modified.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals found that the record does not support petitioner's claim of title under adverse possession because there was no evidence of hostile possession, citing Lusk v. Callaham, 287 S.C. 459, 339 S.E.2d 156 (Ct.App.1986). It based this on the fact that petitioner had repeatedly assured the heirs that he intended to share the property with them and their interest would be preserved and protected. This conclusion was correct as there is ample evidence in the record to support this finding by the Court of Appeals.
However, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sloan v. Greenville County
... ... Perry v. Heirs at Law Distributees of Gadsden, 313 S.C. 296, 437 S.E.2d 174 ... ...
-
First Union Nat. Bank of SC v. Soden
... ... Coop., Inc., 309 S.C. 243, 422 S.E.2d 91 (1992) ; Perry v. Heirs at Law and Distributees of Gadsden, 313 S.C. 296, 437 S.E.2d 174 ... ...
-
All Saints Parish v. Protestant Episcopal Church
... ... and legal title to the Subject Property is held by the common law heirs of George Pawley represented by John Doe and Jane Doe, and the equitable ... Perry v. Heirs at Law and Distributees of Gadsden, 316 S.C. 224, 225, 449 S.E.2d ... ...
-
Knox v. Bogan, 2515
...against the property's true owner could not constitute hostile possession. Id. Our Supreme Court in Perry v. Heirs at Law and Distributees of Gadsden, 316 S.C. 224, 449 S.E.2d 250 (1994), however, noted that the requirement of hostility is applicable to "cases involving boundary disputes be......