South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Metts, 20585

Citation270 S.C. 73,240 S.E.2d 816
Decision Date18 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 20585,20585
PartiesSOUTH CAROLINA STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Respondent, v. Dempsey O. METTS, d/b/a Dempsey's Service Station and Ruth S. Page, and Grace S. Dennis, Appellants.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

William L. Shipley and Alvin L. McElveen, Jr. of Dennis & Dennis, Moncks Corner, for appellants.

H. N. West, Moncks Corner and Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen. Joseph C. Coleman, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Paul S. League, Columbia, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

The respondent, South Carolina State Highway Department, brought this action to confirm its ownership of a right of way, extending thirty-seven and one-half (371/2) feet from the center line of U.S. Highway No. 52, over a service station lot, owned by appellants, in Berkeley County. The complaint further sought removal of a concrete island and gasoline pumps from the claimed right of way. Pertinent here, appellants interposed a general denial and alleged the respondent was estopped to assert any claim to the right of way in question. This appeal is from an order of the lower court granting respondent's motion for summary judgment.

Summary judgment was granted under Rule 44 of the Circuit Court Practice Rules. This Rule permits the granting of summary judgment where the record establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Davis v. Satterfield Construction Company, 263 S.C. 356, 210 S.E.2d 596.

We find no dispute in the material facts and conclude that the trial judge properly granted summary judgment.

The right of way in question, measuring 371/2 feet from the center line of the highway across the property of appellants, was conveyed to Berkeley County and its successors in interest, the respondent, South Carolina State Highway Department, on February 17, 1927, by the then owners. The written easement was recorded in the office of the Clerk of Court for Berkeley County on February 19, 1927. While the book in which the easement was recorded is now misplaced, it is admitted that the document was properly indexed on the public records and a copy kept among the public records of respondent Highway Department.

Subsequent to the conveyance of the right of way to respondent, the owners constructed a service station on their lot about 1930, with a concrete island within the right of way, on which was located two gasoline pumps and two columns supporting the roof of the service station. In 1939 the owners conveyed all of the service station property to Mr. Charles B. Smith who operated the service station until his death in 1958. Mr. Smith's heirs entered into a contract of sale, dated April 30, 1968, and duly recorded, whereby they agreed to convey the service station property to appellant Metts, subject in all respects to the controversy with the respondent as to the extent of the right of way for U.S. Highway No. 52.

It is undisputed that respondent is the holder of a valid record easement for highway purposes across the property now owned by appellants and that the right of way measures 371/2 feet from the center line of the highway. Respondent is accordingly entitled to summary judgment for full possession of the right of way unless appellants' defense of equitable estoppel raises a factual issue.

It appears that the concrete island and gasoline pumps were constructed on a portion of respondent's right of way in 1930 and have remained...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Bruce, 0249
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 4, 1984
    ...the position of the party claiming the estoppel. Murphy v. Hagan, 275 S.C. 334, 271 S.E.2d 311 (1980); S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Metts, 270 S.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d 816 (1978). Here, Sanders had no knowledge or means of knowledge that Tom Bruce would later claim Sanders failed to raise other defe......
  • Binkley v. Rabon Creek Watershed Conserv., 3411.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • November 19, 2001
    ...from a properly recorded instrument. Our supreme court addressed that situation in South Carolina State Highway Department v. Metts.27 In Metts, landowners claimed the Highway Department's failure to object and inform them that a service station island and gas pumps lay within the Highway D......
  • Bilton v. Best Western Royal Motor Lodge, 0261
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • September 11, 1984
    ......Appellants. No. 0261. Court of Appeals of South" Carolina. Sept. 11, 1984. Page 65.        \xC2"... such evidence as a matter of grace, State v. Orr, 225 S.C. 369, 82 S.E.2d 523 (1954), we ... S.C. State Hwy. Dept. v. Metts, . Page 67. 270 S.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d ......
  • Murphy v. Hagan, 21307
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 30, 1980
    ...claiming the estoppel. South Carolina National Bank v. Hammond, 260 S.C. 622, 198 S.E.2d 123 (1973); South Carolina State Highway Department v. Metts, 270 S.C. 73, 240 S.E.2d 816 (1978). Appellant sets forth no facts which meet the legal criteria above. There is an uncontroverted statement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT