Home/Supreme Court of South Carolina/Whaley v. Stevens

Whaley v. Stevens

21 S.C. 221, 1884 S.C. LEXIS 87
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 26, 1884
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 S.C. 221 (Whaley v. Stevens) 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
Whaley v. Stevens, 21 S.C. 221, 1884 S.C. LEXIS 87 (S.C. 1884).

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice McIver.

The plaintiff seeks, by this action, to recover damages for the obstruction of a private way which he claims to be entitled to over the land of the defendant, and also to obtain an order restraining the defendant from continuing such obstruction. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to make an intelligible statement of the facts of the case, without reference to the diagram incorporated in the record, which cannot be introduced here, but which should be embraced in the report of the case. But from the view which we take, it will not be necessary to go fully into the facts of the case.

The plaintiff is the owner of a plantation of John’s Island known as “Caneslatch,” which ivas devised to him by his father, Wm. S. Whaley, who died in July, 1872, and the defendant is [222]*222the owner of another plantation on said Island known as “Seven Oaks,” which he acquired by purchase from John H. Screven and wife in 1853. Caneslatch plantation originally lay to the west of the public road to John’s Island Ferry, and separated from said road by a portion of Seven Oaks plantation, which lay mainly to the east of said road, between it and Stono River, but extended across said road and joined Caneslatch. Soon after the defendant bought Seven Oaks, and in the same year, he conveyed 300 acres of it lying west of the public road to the plaintiff’s father, thus leaving all of the Seven Oaks plantation retained by him lying east of the public road, except the portion designated on the diagram “pine land,” on the west side of the road.

The plaintiff, in his complaint, after alleging that he was the owner of Caneslatch plantation, “containing about 600 acres of land, bounding on the east on a public road on said Island,” proceeds to allege “that the said plaintiff had a right of way, by means of a road leading from the said public road over the adjoining land of the said defendant, known as the Seven Oaks plantation, to a creek leading into the said Stono River, with horses, carts, carnages, and other vehicles; and further had the right to keep at the landing on said creek such boat or boats as he might desire, and that the right of way was for the use of the said Caneslatch plantation and those connected with it.” The defendant in his answer admits that plaintiff is the reputed owner of Caneslatch plantation, “but he denies that he had a right of way by means of a road leading from the public road which bounds the said plantation, over the adjoining land of the defendant, known as the Seven Oaks plantation, to a creek leading into Stono River, * * and he denies that the plaintiff’had the right to keep at the landing on said creek such boat or boats as he might desire, and he denies that the right of way, or any right of way, was for the use of the said Caneslatch plantation and those connected with it,” &c.

The issue thus distinctly presented by the pleadings was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a right of way leading from the public road which constitutes the eastern boundary of Oaneslatch plantation to the creek which empties into Stono River.

[223]

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

Related

Williams v. Tamsberg
821 S.E.2d 494 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2018)
Johnston-Crews Co. v. Folk
111 S.E. 15 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Pickett v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
38 S.E. 160 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 S.C. 221, 1884 S.C. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whaley-v-stevens-sc-1884.