Turner v. Poston

• Citation: 41 S.E. 296,63 S.C. 244
• Parties: TURNER v. POSTON et al.
• Decision Date: 29 March 1902
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

41 S.E. 296

63 S.C. 244

TURNER v. POSTON et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 29, 1902

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Florence county; Buchanan Judge.

Action by L. B. Turner against J. Harbard Poston and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

W. F Clayton, for appellant. Geo. Galletley, for appellees.

JONES J.

This is an action of trespass quare clausum fregit, and the appeal comes from a judgment in favor of the defendants. The first question presented is whether the circuit court erred in overruling the plaintiff's demurrer to the answer. So much of the answer as relates to this question is as follows "(1) That the defendant, J. Harbard Poston, was on the dates mentioned in the complaint, and is now, the legal owner of the following tract of land, of which sixty-eight acres referred to in the complaint form a part and parcel, to wit all that land situate, lying, and being in the county of Florence and state aforesaid, containing seventy-five acres, more or less, which, by a subsequent survey of the premises within the given boundaries, shows the number of acres in said tract to be 143 acres, and is bounded on the southwest by Long Branch, on the northwest by lands formerly of Thomas G. Poston, on the northeast by lands of Samuel Poston, and on the southeast by lands formerly of Thomas Poston, Sr., the same having been conveyed to him by John B. and Mary A. Hannah, by their deed of date November 1st, 1887, and that ever since that date, he has been in the lawful possession of the same. (2) That the defendant J. Harbard Poston leased and let to his codefendants, J. Heelen and A. E. Poston, for the year 1898, about four acres of the arable lands referred to in said complaint, and in pursuance and by virtue of said lease the said defendants J. Heelen and A. E. Poston entered upon the same, and on the fourth day of January, 1898, planted a crop of oats thereon, and ever since that date they have been in the actual possession thereof, and cultivated the same. (3) The defendants admit so much of paragraphs 3 and 4 of said complaint as alleges that the defendants J. Heelen and A. E. Poston plowed down the rows in said premises, which the plaintiff alleges he had planted in corn, and allege their justification in so doing, in that they were at the time in full possession of the said premises, under and by virtue of the lease of their codefendant, J. Harbard Poston, as aforesaid, and that plaintiff's act in plowing the said rows while the...