Mountain Lake Colony v. McJunkin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Mountain Lake Colony v. McJunkin

417 S.E.2d 578, 308 S.C. 202, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 27, 1992

Docket23644

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 417 S.E.2d 578 (Mountain Lake Colony v. McJunkin) 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

Mountain Lake Colony v. McJunkin, 417 S.E.2d 578, 308 S.C. 202, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 110 (S.C. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, Chief Justice:

Appellant Mountain Lake Colony (Mountain Lake) contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to refer this action to the master-in-equity. We dismiss.

I. FACTS

Both Mountain Lake and respondent James M. McJunkin (McJunkin) claim ownership to a tract of land in Greenville County. Mountain Lake brought an action for damages resulting from McJunkin’s conversion of timber and trespass on the *204 land; injunctive relief enjoining McJunkin from entering the land; and for a declaratory judgment declaring that Mountain Lake is the true and lawful owner of the disputed tract. In his answer and counterclaim, McJunkin seeks damages for slander of title, trespass, and conversion, as well as a declaration that he is the true and lawful owner of the disputed tract.

In February 1991, Mountain Lake moved the trial judge to transfer the case to the master-in-equity on the grounds that both parties are seeking equitable relief, and that neither party is entitled to seek damages. The trial judge denied the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Mountain Lake asserts that the trial judge erred in refusing to refer this matter to the master-in-equity. A decision refusing an order of reference is generally not appealable unless the trial court, in refusing the reference, does so upon an erroneous belief that the cause of action was a legal one. Williford v. Downs, 265 S.C. 319, 218 S.E. (2d) 242 (1975).

Here, McJunkin raised the issue of title to the disputed tract in his pleadings. When the defendant’s answer raises an issue of paramount title to the land, such as would, if established, defeat the plaintiffs action, it is an issue for the jury, unless jury trial is waived. Van Every v. Chinquapin Hollow, Inc., 265 S.C. 474, 219 S.E. (2d) 909 (1975).

It appears that the cause of action is a legal one. Accordingly, the order of the trial judge denying a reference is not appealable.

Dismissed.

Chandler, Finney, Toal and Moore, JJ., concur.

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

Harwell, Chief Justice:

Appellant Mountain Lake Colony (Mountain Lake) contends that the trial judge erred in refusing to refer this action to the master-in-equity. We dismiss.

I. FACTS

Both Mountain Lake and respondent James M. McJunkin (McJunkin) claim ownership to a tract of land in Greenville County. Mountain Lake brought an action for damages resulting from McJunkin’s conversion of timber and trespass on the *204 land; injunctive relief enjoining McJunkin from entering the land; and for a declaratory judgment declaring that Mountain Lake is the true and lawful owner of the disputed tract. In his answer and counterclaim, McJunkin seeks damages for slander of title, trespass, and conversion, as well as a declaration that he is the true and lawful owner of the disputed tract.

In February 1991, Mountain Lake moved the trial judge to transfer the case to the master-in-equity on the grounds that both parties are seeking equitable relief, and that neither party is entitled to seek damages. The trial judge denied the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Mountain Lake asserts that the trial judge erred in refusing to refer this matter to the master-in-equity. A decision refusing an order of reference is generally not appealable unless the trial court, in refusing the reference, does so upon an erroneous belief that the cause of action was a legal one. Williford v. Downs, 265 S.C. 319, 218 S.E. (2d) 242 (1975).

Here, McJunkin raised the issue of title to the disputed tract in his pleadings. When the defendant’s answer raises an issue of paramount title to the land, such as would, if established, defeat the plaintiffs action, it is an issue for the jury, unless jury trial is waived. Van Every v. Chinquapin Hollow, Inc., 265 S.C. 474, 219 S.E. (2d) 909 (1975).

It appears that the cause of action is a legal one. Accordingly, the order of the trial judge denying a reference is not appealable.

Dismissed.

Chandler, Finney, Toal and Moore, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 S.E.2d 578, 308 S.C. 202, 1992 S.C. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mountain-lake-colony-v-mcjunkin-sc-1992.

Opinion

I. FACTS

II. DISCUSSION

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack