Seagle v. Montgomery, 17036
| Decision Date | 20 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 17036,17036 |
| Citation | 227 S.C. 436,88 S.E.2d 357 |
| Parties | Mrs. W. C. SEAGLE and Irma S. Hall, Respondents, v. W. Frank MONTGOMERY, Richard B. Boykin, and Barbara H. Boykin, Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
C. T. Graydon, Columbia, Frank E. Rector, Murchison & West, Camden, for appellants.
J. Clator Arrants, Camden, William Elliott, Columbia, for respondents.
Respondents brought this action to quiet title to a small triangular tract of wooded land, described in the complaint and in the quitclaim deed hereinafter mentioned as containing one-third of an acre, more or less, but found upon survey in the cause to contain 1.887 acres, lying between their property on the west and property of appellant Montgomery on the east. They allege that they and the late W. C. Seagle, who was the husband of the respondent Mrs. Seagle and the father of the respondent Mrs. Hall, have owned the tract in question and have held it in their possession for more than forty years; that about 1920 W. C. Seagle and Allen J. Boykin, who then owned the Montgomery tract, established an agreed line and erected a wire fence thereon, the line being the eastern boundary of the disputed tract; that the appellant Montgomery claims title by virtue of a quitclaim deed to him from the appellants Richard B. Boykin and Barbara H. Boykin dated March 8, 1952, which deed they allege constitutes a cloud upon their title; and they pray that they be declared the owners of the tract in question, that Montgomery be adjudged to have no interest in it, and that the quitclaim deed be set aside and declared void. In their answer, appellants deny respondents' claim of ownership and possession and deny the allegations as to the establishment of the line. The case was referred to a special referec to take the testimony and report it to the court without findings of fact or conclusions of law; and upon the testimony so taken and the several plats hereinafter mentioned the matter was heard before the Honorable E. H. Henderson, Presiding Judge, from whose decree this appeal is taken.
The Seagle property was acquired by W. C. Seagle from S. F. Brasington in 1907, and was described in the deed as containing 93.6 acres. In February, 1908, it was surveyed for W. C. Seagle by W. R. Pinckney, whose plat dated February 17, 1908, shows the area as 123 acres, more or less. Upon the death of Mr. Seagle in 1938, the property passed by descent to the respondents.
The Montgomery property was part of a larger tract of 209 acres that was conveyed in 1938 by Elizabeth C. Boykin to E. C. Pearce, Jr., and in 1944 by the Master for Kershaw County to David R. Williams, who in 1946 conveyed 204 acres of it to Barbara H. Boykin and Richard B. Boykin. The two last mentioned conveyed 40.1 acres to the appellant Montgomery by deed dated August 2, 1950; and under date March 8, 1952, they executed a quitclaim deed conveying to him a triangular lot containing one-third of an acre, more or less, the deed reciting that 'the above described lot of land is the westernmost corner of that tract of land conveyed to the grantors herein by deed of David R. Williams of date April 2, 1948 (sic), and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Court for Kershaw County in Book D-B, at page 559, and was intended to have been conveyed to the grantee herein by the conveyance first above mentioned'.
In addition to the Pinckney plat before referred to, there were in evidence the following plats, all showing the line between the Seagle property and the Montgomery property:
A plat of 285 acres, part of the lands of the estate of Col. James Chestnut, made by S. M. Boyle under date March 30, 1869;
A plat made by J. T. Gettys under date December 23, 1937, showing two tracts formerly the property of A. J. Boykin, one of them being the 209-acre tract that was later, in 1938, conveyed to E. C. Pearce, Jr.;
A plat of the two last mentioned tracts made in 1938 by Joseph Palmer, the legend indicating that as to the 209-acre tract it was traced from the Gettys plat of December 23, 1937;
A plat of the 40.1 acre Montgomery tract and a larger tract, also owned by Montgomery, adjoining it to the south, made by M. C. O'Cain under date June 10, 1950;
A plat of the western portion of the 40.1-acre Montgomery tract, made by M. C. O'Cain under date August 14, 1951; and
A plat of the disputed area, shown as containing 1.887 acres, made by F. H. Murray under date January 2, 1953, pursuant to order of the circuit court in the instant case.
The Boyle Plat, which was later followed by Gettys and Palmer in their surveys, and also the Pinckney plat, indicated that the disputed area lay within the Montgomery lands. The Murray plat, which began with a corner established by reference to the Boyle and Palmer plats, also showed the area in question as part of the Montgomery property. The two plats by O'Cain showed it as part of the Seagle lands.
The conveyance by Richard B. Boykin and Barbara H. Boykin to Montgomery dated August 2, 1950, to which we have referred, describes the land conveyed as 'containing forty and one-tenth (40.1) acres, more or less, more particularly shown and described on a plat of the premises by M. C. O'Cain, surveyor, dated July 25th, 1950, and recorded in the office of the Clerk of Court for Kershaw County'. The reference to July 25, 1950, as the date of the plat is not explined in the testimony. Mr. O'Cain testified that he made two plats, both at Mr. Montgomery's request; the one by which Mr. Montgomery bought the property, and a later one made on August 14, 1951. The latter is in evidence, marked 'Plaintiffs' Exhibit C'; the O'Cain plat of June 10, 1950, is marked 'Plaintiffs' Exhibit B', but except for this notation on it the record does not show its introduction in evidence, or that there was anything introduced in evidence as 'Plaintiffs' Exhibit B'.
The learned circuit judge found as a matter of fact that continuously since 1908 the disputed area had been protected by a substantial enclosure, there being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullis v. Winchester
...the lower Court. Fogle v. Void, 223 S.C. 83, 74 S.E.2d 358; Phillips v. DuBose, 223 S.C. 224, 75 S.E.2d 56; and Seagle et al. v. Montgomery et al., 227 S.C. 436, 88 S.E.2d 357. The deed of John Chonis to the respondent constituted color of title. This deed contains a minute and definite des......
-
Crotwell v. Whitney
...S.C. 83, 74 S.E.2d 358; Phillips v. DuBose, 223 S.C. 224, 75 S.E.2d 56; Knight v. Hilton, 224 S.C. 452, 79 S.E.2d 871; Seagle v. Montgomery, 227 S.C. 436, 88 S.E.2d 357. Appellants cannot invoke the equitable defense of laches here, because this is an action by the holders of the legal titl......
-
Privette v. Garrison, 17565
...to determination of whether there was any evidence to support it. Phillips v. DuBose, 223 S.C. 224, 75 S.E.2d 56; Seagle v. Montgomery, 227 S.C. 436, 88 S.E.2d 357. The trial judge, frankly admitting the impossibility of accurate determination, from the record before him, of the ownership o......
-
Campbell v. Christian, 17563
...determination of whether or not there was any evidence to support it. Phillips v. DuBose, 223 S.C. 224, 75 S.E.2d 56; Seagle v. Montgomery, 227 S.C. 436, 88 S.E.2d 357. Campbell was born on January 12, 1875, and was eighty-one years old at the time of his death in February, 1956. In Februar......