Case ID: scl_45/html/0597-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Nbali;, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Bank of the State of South Carolina vs. Simpson Bobo.
    
      Trespass to try Title — Judgment—Evidence—Corporation Agent — Stockholder—New Trial — Location.
    A judgment in trespass to try title against a corporation of which B. was agent and a stockholder, is not conclusive against B. claiming under a junior grant, to himself, but the record may be given in evidence against him on the question of location.
    N ew trial granted, the verdict being against the evidence upon a question of location. ' '
    The Court will more readily grant a new trial upon a question of location than upon most other questions of fact.
    BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT SPARTANBURG, FALL TERM, 1858.
    The report of bis Honor, tbe presiding Judge, is as follows:
    “ This was an action of trespass to try title.
    
      “ The plaintiff showed title under a grant to Abraham ■ Markley, for one thousand acres on the ridge between Island Creek and the head waters of Thicketty Creek, in Spartan-Burg district, dated 3d November, 1788,
    “ In the progress of the case, it was shown that the plaintiff in 1851, recovered the land now in dispute, in a suit against the South Carolina Manufacturing Company, of which the •defendant then was the agent and a large stockholder. The judgment bears date 30th December, 1851.
    “ The plaintiff contended that this recovery concluded the defendant’s defence. I thought otherwise, but allowed the record to be given in evidence in favor, of the location.
    “The defendant relied on a .grant to himself, for nine hundred and eighty-seven acres, 25th June 1851.
    £! The plaintiff showed a resurvey of the Markley grant, in 1802: that survey all the Surveyors conceded covered the land in dispute.
    “ Epton and Gibbes, Surveyors, agreed that the Markley grant was well located, and covered the land in dispute. Harris and Camp, Surveyors, thought otherwise.
    “ The land, as claimed by the plaintiff, and located by Epton and Gibbes, was the same which had been recovered in 1851, against the South Carolina Manufacturing Company.
    “ Ezekiel Dobbins, an aged witness, now deceased, who owned an adjoining tract of land, pointed out the Hickory Station as the station of the Markley grant.
    “ It was abundantly proved that the land in dispute, from the earliest times, had' been known and recognized as the Markley land.
    
      “ The corner called the Brown corner, was ascertained, as Epton thought, by pointers.
    “ The land lay, beyond all doubt, on the ridge between Island Creek and the head waters of Thicketty.
    “ I thought the location was well established, and that the plaintiff ought to have a verdict. The jury thought differently, and found for the defendant.”
    The plaintiff appealed and now moved this Court for a new trial, on the grounds :
    1. Because the recovery in the case of the Plaintiff vs. The South Carolina Manufacturing Company, should have been held conclusive against the defendant in this case, he being a member of said Company, and its acting agent.
    2. Because the grant under which the plaintiff claims, was located consistently with the best evidences of location, and should have been established.
    Dawláns, for appellant.
    
      
      Reed, contra,
    cited Bank vs. Bridges, (ante 87) 1 Strob. 2 ; Thomas vs. Jeter, 1 Hill, 380.
   Tbe opinion of tbe Court was delivered by

O’Nbali;, J.

1. On tbe first ground of appeal, we are constrained to say, tbat we cannot give greater effect to tbe recovery in tbe case of this Plaintiff vs. The South Carolina Manufacturing Company, than was given on tbe circuit. It was admissible to show a former location in a suit at law between the plaintiff, and a party having an interest identical with the defendant. Still it could not be conclusive against the defendant, for be is not the same party, nor a privy in law, on the title then adjudicated. Nor does tbe decision in the case against Bridges, 11 Rich. 87, help the objection of tbe defendant to its admissibility in evidence. For there tbe only questions adjudicated were, that it was not conclusive: and that Bridges, who was a mere trespasser under Bobo, was no privy in law.

2. The grant under which the plaintiff claims was, we think, well located. The facts that the land in dispute lay on the ridge between the head-waters of Thicketty Creek, and Island Creek, that in 1802 it had been resurveyed, and that that plat was found to cover the locus in quo: that it, (the land in dispute) was always known and recognized as the Markley land, under whose grant the plaintiff claims; that in the suit against the South Carolina Manufacturing Company in 1851, the Markley grant was located on the land in dispute; that if the Brown corner, (where were found pointers of the age of the grant, and one line tree) was taken as the corner of the Markley grant, and the consequent location covering the land in dispute : or if taking the survey in 1802, with the Hickory station pointed out by Dobbins, with the concurring opinions of two such surveyors as Gibbs and Epton, in favor of tbe location, certainly constitute unanswerable reasons in favor of tbe plaintiff’s location, and that tbe plaintiff ought to have bad a verdict. It is true tbe water marks are not precisely those found on the original plat: but these certainly ought not to prevail against such evidences of location as I have stated. Nor do I think the opinión of two very worthy men and good surveyors, Col. Harris and Mr. Camp, against the location, ought to prevail.

That the jury have found against the location is no reason why the verdict should stand. For in Felder vs. Bonett, 2 McM. 44-47, and in many other cases, we have held that the Court having the means of reaching the truth with greater certainty in questions of location than in most other questions of fact, will more readily grant motions for new trial.

The motion for a new trial is therefore granted.

Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner, Glover and MuNro, JJ., concurred.

Motion granted.