Henderson v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Henderson v. Jones

4 S.C.L. 402

DecidedMay 15, 1810

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C.L. 402 (Henderson v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. Jones, 4 S.C.L. 402 (S.C. 1810).

Pincite

Opinion

But per totam curiam,.

Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion. The judgment of the District Court was right. However improperly or incorrectly the deputy surveyor may have acted, yet, if the land has been granted, the grantee is entitled to the benefit of his grant; at any rate, until it has been cancelled or set aside. The public officers entrusted with issuing grants, should be careful to guard against violations of the laws respecting the granting of vacant lands ; but after the 'grant has passed, and rights have been acquired under it, it cannot be invalidated, or questioned, unless in some proceeding in which that is the direct and sole object. The case of Mounce v. Ingram, established this doctrine. See 1 vol. 55. And parol evidence has been admitted to show where the land lies, by proving the original lines to which the grant refers, or marks mentioned in the plat, attached to the grant. See the case of Perry v. Middle» ton, I vol. 103 and 546.

Motion rejected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

But per totam curiam,.

Grimke, J.,

delivered the opinion. The judgment of the District Court was right. However improperly or incorrectly the deputy surveyor may have acted, yet, if the land has been granted, the grantee is entitled to the benefit of his grant; at any rate, until it has been cancelled or set aside. The public officers entrusted with issuing grants, should be careful to guard against violations of the laws respecting the granting of vacant lands ; but after the 'grant has passed, and rights have been acquired under it, it cannot be invalidated, or questioned, unless in some proceeding in which that is the direct and sole object. The case of Mounce v. Ingram, established this doctrine. See 1 vol. 55. And parol evidence has been admitted to show where the land lies, by proving the original lines to which the grant refers, or marks mentioned in the plat, attached to the grant. See the case of Perry v. Middle» ton, I vol. 103 and 546.

Motion rejected.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C.L. 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-jones-sc-1810.