Smalls v. La Roche

• Decision Date: 17 October 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 1016,93 S.C. 45
• Parties: SMALLS v. LA ROCHE.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 1016

93 S.C. 45

SMALLS v. LA ROCHE.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 17, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Guy Smalls against John J. La Roche. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Wm Henry Parker, of Charleston, for appellant. Logan & Grace, of Charleston, for respondent.

WOODS J.

The appeal of the defendant in this action for the recovery of possession of a small triangular strip of land involves the sufficiency of the form of the verdict and the correctness of some propositions of law laid down in the charge.

The plaintiff and defendant bought adjoining tracts of land from F. Schaffer, and the dispute arose over the boundary line. The jury found a verdict in this form: "Find for the plaintiff the land in dispute and two hundred dollars damages." A motion for a new trial was refused on condition that the plaintiff should remit $100 from the damages assessed by the jury. The condition was complied with, and the judgment entered accordingly. The defendant contends that the verdict should have been set aside for uncertainty, because in limits and area "the land in dispute" as described in the complaint does not correspond with "the land in dispute" as represented on the plats, and the plats do not correspond with each other. Analysis of the issues will show that the objection is not well founded. F. Schaffer had a tract of 987 acres surveyed and divided by Simons & Howe, surveyors, in January, 1881, On January 20, 1892, he conveyed to Guy Smalls, the plaintiff, one of the lots of land, designated on the plat as No. 22, containing 20 acres, in pursuance of an agreement to sell under which Smalls had been in possession for several years. On August 22, 1907, the defendant, John J. La Roche, acquired his title from Schaffer to the lots designated on the Simons & Howe plat as "lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and the area to the southeast thereof." One of the boundaries of this purchase was the Rockville road, and another was "lands of Guy Smalls known as lot 22." The plaintiff thus sets out the basis of his claim and the description of the land in the first paragraph of the complaint: "That he is now, and at the times hereinafter mentioned was, the owner of and entitled to immediate possession of a certain tract of land on Wadmalaw Island, in the county of Charleston, state of South Carolina and has been the owner of and in possession of said tract of land for more than twenty years last past, to wit, from on or about the month of June, 1881, which said tract of land is described as follows: Being the western part of lot No. 22; measuring and containing on Rockville road 1.85 chains, and in depth running to the southwest corner of said lot No. 22 52.5 chains, more or less; butting and bounding east on remaining portion of lot No. 22; south by Cherry point; north by Rockville road; west by lot No. 23, which said lot of land is shown by being colored red on the plat hereto attached and made a part of this complaint." The plat referred to in the complaint is not that of Simons & Howe, but a plat made for plaintiff in 1909. Commencing with what appears to...