Williamson v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 04 July 1917 |
| Docket Number | 9727. |
| Citation | 93 S.E. 15,107 S.C. 397 |
| Parties | WILLIAMSON v. ABBOTT ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Darlington County; Thos J. Mauldin, Judge.
Action by L. W. Williamson against G. Walter Abbott and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Geo. H Edwards, of Darlington, for appellants.
Dargan & Dargan and E. C. Dennis, all of Darlington, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from judgment for plaintiff for $25 damages for closing a ditch on their land through which plaintiff claims a prescriptive right of drainage. The parties own adjoining lands. Plaintiff acquired his title in 1896. Defendants acquired theirs in 1911, and closed the ditch in 1913.
The testimony on which plaintiff relies to establish the right claimed, stated most strongly in his favor, tends to show that, for more than 20 years, there had been a ditch on defendants' land, which began at or near the line between them, and ran thence through defendants' land to a branch; and, for more than 20 years, there had been a ditch on his land, which emptied into the one on defendants' land; that in March, 1913, defendants filled up a part of the ditch on their land, next to the dividing line, and thereby prevented the drainage of his land through defendants' ditch. The testimony does not fix definitely the date when the ditch on plaintiff's land was dug and connected with the one on defendants' land; but plaintiff's witness Eli Wingate fixes it approximately, for he says that he dug it about 5 years after the memorable political campaign of 1876; that he was a tenant of the land now owned by plaintiff, under Wilson Fountain, and was cultivating the bottom which the ditch drains; that, finding it too wet, by permission from Fountain, he undertook to drain it; that Handy Holloway was at that time a tenant of the land now owned by defendants, renting the same from Mrs. Marco, the owner, and he applied to Handy and obtained permission from him to connect the ditch on Fountain's land which he contemplated digging, with the one on Mrs. Marco's land. There is no testimony to the contrary; and there is no testimony that the privilege so obtained and begun by Wingate was ever claimed as a right by any one, until after plaintiff acquired his title, in 1896, and no testimony of any positive assertion of such right by plaintiff, until in 1908, at which time the ditch on Mrs. Marco's land was cleaned out and dug deeper, but obstructed for several feet from the dividing line on Mrs. Marco's land. Plaintiff testified that he complained of the obstruction (he does not say to whom), and it was removed (he does not know by whom).
From the foregoing statement, it clearly appears that the testimony offered by plaintiff not only fails to establish even prima facie, the right claimed, but it shows affirmatively that he had no such right. It follows that the trial judge erred in refusing defendants' motion for a directed verdict.
To establish a right by prescription, it is necessary to prove three things: (1) The continued and uninterrupted use or enjoyment of the right for the full period of 20 years; (2) the identity of the thing enjoyed (3) that the use or enjoyment was adverse, or under claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grady v. City of Greenville
...owner's acquiescence therein can, obviously, not support an inference of dedication." Tiffany, Real Property, § 482. See Williamson v. Abbott, 107 S.C. 397, 93 S.E. 15. the right, here bestowed, to use the street was expressly permissive, even if the authority to dedicate had been present, ......
-
Skelton v. First Baptist Church of Travelers Rest
... ... use will be presumed to have been adverse." Id ... (quoting Williamson v. Abbott, 107 S.C. 397, 400, 93 ... S.E. 15, 16 (1917)). "[A] party claiming a prescriptive ... easement has the burden of proving all ... ...
-
Dukes v. Farrell
...of [twenty] years, the use will be presumed to have been adverse." Simmons, Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 42 at 15-16 (quoting Williamson, 107 S.C. at 400, 93 S.E. at 16). "However, because the 'continuous' 'uninterrupted' elements for adverse use are already required to establish a prescriptive e......
-
Steele v. Williams
... ... enjoyed; (3) that the use or enjoyment was adverse or under ... claim of right. Williamson v. Abbott, 107 S.C. 397, ... 93 S.E. 15 ... There ... was not an enjoyment or use of this alley for twenty years by ... the ... ...