Watson v. Matley

Decision Date17 August 1922
Docket Number10988.
Citation114 S.E. 412,121 S.C. 482
PartiesWATSON v. MATLEY ET AL.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Kershaw County; I. W Bowman, Judge.

Action by T. W. Watson against Mary Matley and others. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.

B. B Evans, of Columbia, for appellants.

De Pass & De Pass, of Columbia, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The plaintiff brought this action against W. J. Matley for trespass upon his land. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner and in possession of a tract of land, but that the defendant had entered upon his land, destroyed his crop, cut down his trees, and put a tenant in possession of a house on his land. It was a boundary dispute. The defendant claimed title, possession, and also set up that the plaintiff had made an assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and conveyed his interest, if any, to the assignee.

The defendant died, pending the litigation, and his heirs at law were substituted as defendants. There were orders of survey. The surveyors made their report. That report showed the land in dispute to be on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff moved for judgment on the report of the surveyors. This motion was granted, and the defendants appealed. The appeal must be sustained.

The defendants set up title in themselves by adverse possession. They denied the plaintiff's title to the whole tract of land described in the complaint. Even granting that Hogan's line...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
4 books & journal articles
  • B. Interference with Property
    • United States
    • The South Carolina Law of Torts (SCBar) Chapter 6 Intentional Torts
    • Invalid date
    ...see also Bodiford v. Spanish Oak Farms, Inc., 317 S.C. 539, 455 S.E.2d 194 (Ct. App. 1995) (boundary dispute).[239] Watson v. Motley, 121 S.C. 482, 114 S.E. 412 (1922); M'Coleman v. Wilkes, 34 S.C.L. (3 Strob.) 465 (1849); see also Geiger v. Kaigler, 15 S.C. 262 (1880). [240] Parker v. Shec......
  • 44 Trespass
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) (2015 Ed.)
    • Invalid date
    ...is injury to possession, and generally either actual or constructive possession is sufficient to maintain action).[9] Watson v. Motley, 121 S.C. 482, 114 S.E. 412 (1922).[10] Lyles v. Fellers, 138 S.C. 31, 136 S.E. 13 (1926) (plaintiff's possession is sufficient to maintain trespass against......
  • C. Elements Defined
    • United States
    • Elements of Civil Causes of Action (SCBar) 46 Trespass
    • Invalid date
    ...is injury to possession, and generally either actual or constructive possession is sufficient to maintain action).[9] Watson v. Motley, 121 S.C. 482, 114 S.E. 412 (1922).[10] Lyles v. Fellers, 138 S.C. 31, 136 S.E. 13 (1926) (plaintiff's possession is sufficient to maintain trespass against......
  • § 4-41 Trespass to Real Property - Elements
    • United States
    • South Carolina Requests to Charge - Civil (SCBar) Chapter 4 Actions Affecting or Arising Out of Real Property
    • Invalid date
    ...is an essential element of a cause of action for trespass. See Lyles v. Fellers, 138 S.C. 31, 136 S.E. 13 (1926); Watson v. Matley, 121 S.C. 482, 114 S.E. 412 (1922); Mack v. Edens, 320 S.C. 236, 464 S.E.2d 124 (Ct. App. 1995); Ravan v. Greenville County, 315 S.C. 447, 434 S.E.2d 296 (Ct. A......

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