State ex rel. McLeod v. Sloan Const. Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 0395,0395
• Citation: 284 S.C. 491,328 S.E.2d 84
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of South Carolina, ex rel. Daniel R. McLEOD, Attorney General, Appellant, v. SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondent. . Heard

Page 84

328 S.E.2d 84

284 S.C. 491

STATE of South Carolina, ex rel. Daniel R. McLEOD, Attorney General, Appellant, v. SLOAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

No. 0395.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard March 22, 1984.

Decided Feb. 13, 1985.

T. Travis Medlock, Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod, Retired Atty. Gen., Kenneth P. Woodington and David C. Eckstrom, Asst. Attys. Gen., Columbia, for appellant.

C. Thomas Wyche and Bradford W. Wyche of Wyche, Burgess, Freeman & Parham, P.A., Greenville, for respondent.

BELL, Judge:

The State of South Carolina commenced this action on the relation of its Attorney General seeking a declaratory judgment The material facts are undisputed. Sloan holds title to approximately 330 acres of land along the Broad River in Union County. Within Sloan's tract is a parcel originally granted by a North Carolina Crown Grant to one Samuel Torbert in 1767. ¹ That grant conveyed:

                that it owns a portion of the bed of the Broad River in Union County from which Sloan Construction Company, the riparian proprietor, has been mining sand.   The Broad River at the site in question is a nontidal, navigable stream.   The circuit court held that Sloan owns the riverbed to the center of the river.   The State appeals.   We affirm
                

100 Acres Mecklenburgh on the S? side of Broad river above Richard Hughes including his improvement in the bent of the river and including a small Island in the river Beginning at a Sowerwood tree on the river Bank about a hundred po: above the bent and runs S? 20 E + 200 po: to a large pine in the fork of a small branch thence down the Branch N? 70 + 100 po: to an ash on the river then up the river as it meanders to the Beginning.

The Torbert Grant is the focus of this case.

In 1798 Samuel Torbert died testate, devising a life estate in the property to his wife, Susanah Torbert, with a fee simple in remainder to his son, Samuel Torbert, Jr. The next recorded reference to the property appears in 1826 when the sheriff of Union District levied on it pursuant to a judgment against one Zachariah Reid. The public records do not show how Reid obtained possession of the property. However, there is no evidence the parcel in question was regranted by the State during the period from 1798 to 1826. From 1826 to 1973 the chain of title is perfect and unbroken. In 1973 Sloan purchased the property from its then owner, James Hubert Gibson.

Sloan mines sand from the river along the property. The State, as sovereign, claims title to the riverbed where Sloan conducts its mining operations. To enforce its claim, the State brought this action. The case is significant because for the first time in South Carolina's history the question of title to the bed of a nontidal, navigable stream is in issue between the State and the owner of adjacent riparian land.

I.

The parties disagree on the question we must decide. The State frames the issue as whether title to the beds of all nontidal, navigable rivers in South Carolina is vested in the sovereign by the common law. It argues that we need not decide what lands were conveyed by the Torbert Grant in 1767 because Sloan has not connected its title to that grant.

Sloan, on the other hand, suggests we need not decide whether the common law gives the State title to the beds of all nontidal, navigable rivers in South Carolina. It argues that the gap in its chain of title is irrelevant. The dispositive issue, in Sloan's view, is what property was conveyed by the Crown to Samuel Torbert in 1767. If the sovereign divested itself of title to the riverbed in 1767, Sloan argues, the State cannot claim ownership of the land unless it proves a later source of title by purchase or escheat.

On either view of the case, a key issue is whether Sloan must prove a complete chain of title back to the Torbert Grant. We therefore address that issue first.

II.

The State admits King George III conveyed the upland bordering the Broad River to Torbert in 1767. It also admits Sloan holds title to that same land today.

                Having admitted it divested itself, as sovereign, of title in 1767, the State cannot rely on alleged defects in Sloan's chain of title to regain ownership of what was granted.   Like any other litigant, the State must recover on the strength of its own title, not the weakness of the defendant's.   State of South Carolina v. Evans, 33 S.C. 184, 11 S.E. 697 (1890);   State v. Pacific Guano Co., 22 S.C. 50 (1884)
                

This principle clearly applies to the grant of the upland. There is no reason it should not also apply to a grant of the riverbed. If Sloan can show the riverbed was granted to Torbert in 1767, then the State, as the plaintiff asserting title, must prove by positive evidence that it regained title in some manner at a subsequent time. Having once divested itself of title to the riverbed, the sovereign cannot rely on a break in the record chain of private titles to establish its ownership. The question of whether the riverbed was conveyed by the Torbert Grant is thus the critical question to be answered.

The State argues that even if the bed of the river was conveyed by the Torbert Grant, Sloan must prove an unbroken chain of title from Torbert to itself in order to defeat the State's claim of ownership. In support of this novel proposition, it cites State v. Yelsen Land Co., 265 S.C. 78, 216 S.E.2d 876 (1975).

We find no indication in Yelsen Land that the Supreme Court was overruling State v. Evans, supra, by requiring a private owner to prove a perfect and unbroken chain of title to a sovereign grant. Evans was neither cited by the parties nor mentioned by the Court in Yelsen Land. The language of the decision relied on by the State simply refers to the claimant's inability in that case to "connect its title to a grant from the State." 265 S.C. at 81, 216 S.E.2d at 879. We read this statement as meaning the private owner failed to show a sovereign grant of the tidelands in question. Any other interpretation would require us to assume the Supreme Court intended to make a drastic change in the settled rules of common law without comment or explanation. If the "perfect chain of title" argument were accepted, few private titles would be secure against the State, since all real property in South Carolina was originally vested in the sovereign as the common source of title. See State v. Pacific Guano Co., supra; Trustees of the University of South Carolina v. City of Columbia, 108 S.C. 244, 93 S.E. 934 (1917).

III.

The remaining issue is whether the Torbert Grant conveyed title to the center of the river in 1767.

Grants of land by a former sovereign are construed according to the law in force at the time of the grant. Florida Gravel Co. v. Capital City Sand & Gravel Co., 170 Ga. 855, 154 S.E. 255 (1930); Lewis v. City of Utica, 159 A.D. 160, 145 N.Y.S. 346 (1913). In 1712 the General Assembly enacted a reception statute expressly declaring the common law of England to be the law of South Carolina:

... all and every part of the Common Law of England, where the same is not ... inconsistent with the particular constitutions, customs and laws of this Province, ... is hereby made and declared to be in as full force and virtue within this Province, as the same is or ought to be within the said Kingdom of England ....

2 Stat. at Large of South Carolina 401, 413-414 (Cooper ed. 1837). Thus, in 1767 the Torbert Grant would be governed by the English common law rule, unless that rule had been altered by statute or custom in South Carolina.

The State concedes that the English common law gave title to the bed of tidal streams to the sovereign and title to the bed of nontidal, fresh water streams to the owners of the adjacent riparian land, the owner on each side taking to the center of the stream. Accordingly, grants of land bounded by rivers above tidewater vested title in the grantee to the thread of the stream, unless the terms of the grant clearly reserved the riverbed in the grantor. See Fulton Light, Heat & Power Co. v However, the State argues the English rule was not the law of South Carolina in 1767. It claims no colonial South Carolina case decided that riparian grantees own to the center of the river. It further asserts the English rule would not have applied by virtue of the 1712 reception statute, because the rule was inconsistent with conditions in this country. Finally, it argues that later North Carolina cases demonstrate the English rule did not apply to prerevolutionary grants in the Carolinas. We find these arguments unpersuasive.

                State, 200 N.Y. 400, 94 N.E. 199 (1911);  J. Angell,A Treatise on the Common Law Relating to Watercourses 11 (4th ed. Boston 1850) (1st ed. Boston 1824);  M. Hale, De Jure Maris, c. i, at 5;  3 J. Kent, Commentaries * 427;  see also Canal Comm'rs. v. People, 5 Wend. 423, 443 (N.Y.1830) (per Walworth, Chancellor).   Under this rule, the Torbert Grant would have conveyed title to the center of the Broad River.
                

The mere absence of decisional law in colonial South Carolina does little to advance the State's position. On the contrary, the English common law ordinarily is presumed to govern if there is no South Carolina authority to the contrary. Cf. O'Hagan v. Fraternal Aid Union, 144 S.C. 84, 141 S.E. 893 (1928). This does not mean our courts are bound by every decision made by the courts of England; but it does suggest the reasons must be very strong for departing from the English common law if there is no South Carolina authority on a particular point. See Shecut v. McDowell, 6 S.C.L. (1 Tread.) 35 (1812). Since no authority prior to 1767 questioned the applicability of the English rule in South Carolina, that rule is presumed to have been the law of the province until shown otherwise.

The State also argues that the English rule was inconsistent with conditions and customs in colonial South Carolina; yet it offered no proof of any local custom recognizing sovereign rights to the beds of...