State v. Pacific Guano Co.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1887 |
| Citation | 2 S.E. 265,26 S.C. 610 |
| Parties | STATE v. PACIFIC GUANO CO. and another. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
This action was commenced in 1882, and it was brought to establish the title of the state to the beds of certain creeks running through Chisolm's island, and to recover the value of phosphates alleged to have been removed therefrom. The hearing of the case before his honor, Judge WALLACE, in 1883 resulted in a judgment in favor of the state as to the title of the beds of certain of the creeks, below low-water mark and also that the proper measure of damages "was the value of the phosphate rock removed by the defendants, less the amount which they had added to such value by its removal from the mine and preparation for market," and a reference was ordered to ascertain the value of said removed phosphate in its natural state and position, to be determined by the rule, as to the measure of damages, laid down as above. From this judgment there was an appeal to this court which was heard 1883. 22 S.C. 56. In this appeal, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed, both as to the title of the state to the beds of the creeks mentioned, and as to the principle by which the damages were to be ascertained; so that these two questions have been definitely adjudged, and are now beyond controversy, to-wit: That the state has title to the beds below low-water mark of the creeks mentioned, and that the defendants must account for the value of the phosphates removed therefrom, said value to be ascertained by deducting the amount which the defendants have added to such value by the removal of the phosphate from the mine, and its preparation for market; in other words, the value of the rock in its natural state and position, to be determined by the application of the above rule. This court also affirmed the reference which his honor, Judge WALLACE had ordered to ascertain the quantity and value of the removed rock.
Upon the case being remanded, this reference was held by Mr. Hyde, who took a mass of testimony, including the production of 17 books of account, produced by the defendant under a subp na duces tecum. Upon the testimony thus taken by the referee and reported, the case was heard by his honor, Judge COTHRAN, without a jury, at Beaufort, February term of the court, 1886, by consent of all parties, as we understand. His honor found, as matter of fact, that 18,536 1/2 tons of rock had been removed from the territory belonging to the state, and that the value thereof, under the measure of damages adopted, was $53,570.48 1/2, for which sum he adjudged and decreed that the Pacific Guano Company should account, with costs. From this judgment the present appeal is before us.
The exceptions are numerous, but we do not deem it necessary to set them out in full, or to discuss them seriatim inasmuch as, in our judgment, the case turns upon the single question whether or not his honor, in his findings of fact, applied and was governed by an erroneous principle of law. The case below was a case at law, and the only questions before the court below were questions of fact, to-wit: What quantity of phosphate rock had been removed by the defendants from the property of the state, and what was its value? Questions of fact in a case at law are generally, in fact universally, for the jury; and, in so far as such questions depend upon the force and effect of the testimony introduced, they are beyond the reach of this court, as we have often said. Where, however, the jury has been instructed erroneously by the presiding judge as to any principle of law laid down by him for their guidance in finding the facts, such alleged error may be excepted to, and may be brought before us for review by appeal, which, if sustained, may vacate the judgment based upon the facts...
To continue reading
Request your trial