Watson v. Motley

114 S.E. 412, 121 S.C. 482, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 212
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedAugust 17, 1922
Docket10988
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 S.E. 412 (Watson v. Motley) 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
Watson v. Motley, 114 S.E. 412, 121 S.C. 482, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 212 (S.C. 1922).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

The plaintiff brought this action against W. J. Motley 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 crops, 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 (conceded to be the *484 original line) is correctly located by the surveyors, and that the land in dispute was originally a part of plaintiff’s land, it did not and could not determine, the question of adverse possession. It is also elemental law that, if the plaintiff has parted with his title to the land, he cannot recover possession on his title, because, if the defendants are in possession, they can stay in possession until its possession is demanded by the true owner.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Related

Stratos v. King
319 S.E.2d 356 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)
Powell v. Green
315 S.E.2d 183 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 S.E. 412, 121 S.C. 482, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-motley-sc-1922.