State v. Holston Land Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 20809,20809 |
| Citation | 248 S.E.2d 922,272 S.C. 65 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of South Carolina, Appellant, v. HOLSTON LAND COMPANY, INC., Respondent. |
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Edward B. Latimer and Staff Atty. Paul H. Infinger, Columbia, and Edward D. Buckley of Bailey & Buckley, Charleston, for appellant.
Augustine T. Smythe, Pledger M. Bishop, Jr., and Claron A. Robertson, III, of Buist, Moore, Smythe & McGee, Charleston, for respondent.
This appeal is from the lower court's order granting respondent's motion for a directed verdict. We affirm.
This action arises out of the conflicting title claims of appellant, State of South Carolina, and respondent Holston Land Company, Inc., to Drum Island and its adjacent tidelands area. Drum Island is located in the Cooper River in Charleston, South Carolina. Prior to 1950 much of the island stood below the mean high tide mark of the Cooper River. By the early 1950's portions of the island were encircled by dikes, and, due to artificial accretion, most of the island has now been elevated above the high water mark.
Appellant instituted this suit against Holston to determine who has title to Drum Island and its adjacent tidelands. The State asserts it holds title to the tidelands, the submerged lands, the water within the State, as well as former tidelands which have been built up through artificial accretion. Holston maintains it owns the property in question including all accretions thereto and traces its title to a grant from King George III to Thomas Savage dated May 21, 1763. The lower court directed a verdict for respondent and confirmed Holston's title to the usual low water mark of Drum Island. We affirm.
In order to resolve this dispute between the State and Holston concerning title to Drum Island and its adjacent tidelands, we need only consider two questions: (1) whether Holston's predecessors in title possessed a valid grant, See Lane v. McEachern, 251 S.C. 272, 162 S.E.2d 174 (1968); and (2) whether the language of the grant is sufficient to convey land lying below the high water mark. See Conch Creek Corp. v. Guess, 263 S.C. 211, 209 S.E.2d 560 (1974). With respect to the first question, the State concedes that the property in dispute was granted by King George III and that the grant is traceable in a complete chain into respondent. Thus, we need only determine whether the 1763 grant evidenced an intent to convey property below the high water mark.
The May 21, 1763 grant from King George III to Thomas Savage reads as follows:
A plantation or tract of land containing two hundred acres including several small islands adjacent to the same situate in Berkeley County between Town Creek and Hobcaw Ferry, bounded to the west on the said creek, to the east on that part of Cooper River that is opposite to Hobcaw, being surrounded on every part by the waters of said river, and hath such shape, form and marks as appear by a plat thereof hereunto annexed.
The plat annex to the grant bears the following legend:
Pursuant to a precept to me directed by the Honorable Egerton Leigh, his Majesty's Surveyor General, dated the 3rd day of May, A.D....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. State
...had the power to grant, and did in fact grant, tidelands to subjects, who exercised private ownership."); State v. Holston Land Co., 272 S.C. 65, 68, 248 S.E.2d 922, 924 (1978) ("The law in South Carolina is well settled that a grant conveying `marshland' can give rise to private ownership ......
-
Hoyler v. State
...252 S.E.2d at 134 (noting the plat annexed to the deed was drawn to a scale of one inch to twenty chains); State v. Holston Land Co. , 272 S.C. 65, 67, 248 S.E.2d 922, 924 (1978) (same).Merry Land also presented the deposition testimony of a second surveyor, Jim Gardner. Gardner analyzed th......
-
Horry County v. Tilghman
...Arizona, 414 U.S. 313, 94 S.Ct. 517, 38 L.Ed.2d 526 (1973); U.S. v. Claridge, 416 F.2d 933, 935 (9th Cir.1969); State v. Holston Land Co., 272 S.C. 65, 248 S.E.2d 922 (1978); De Simone v. Kramer, 77 Wis.2d 188, 252 N.W.2d 653 (1977); State Department of Natural Resources v. Pankratz, 538 P.......
-
Grant v. State , 4870.
...high water mark. Lowcountry Open Land Trust v. State, 347 S.C. 96, 103, 552 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct.App.2001); State v. Holston Land Co., 272 S.C. 65, 66, 248 S.E.2d 922, 923 (1978). Because the State is presumed to hold title to tidelands in trust for the benefit of the public, a grant of priv......