Case ID: scl_9/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Nott.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Turner Starke against Mary Johnson.
    ■ — ■—— rule.JjhatsSe certain CbomZtán”es%Uhnedto {>Iat- There may be some excep-
    Trespass to try titles.
    The plaintiff’s grant calls for William Hills, John Gladdens, and John Morris's lands; but to reach William Hills and John Gladden's lands, would require an extension of the lines far beyond what is called for in the original plat; to extend them to John Morris's land would entirely J distort the plat, and render it difficult, if impossible, to close them; the Jury, therefore, limited the plaintiff’s claim to his courses and distances, without regard to the boundaries called for. Adopting this principle, the trespass was found not to be within plaintiff’s lines, and a verdict was given for the defendant. A new new trial was now moved for, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Nott.

This case was tried at Fairfield, Spring Term, 1815, before Mr. Justice Smith. He has not favoured this Court with any report of the evidence ; and the case, therefore, must be determined upon the face of the plat and grant. It has been a general rule, and 1 might almost say, an universal one, with this Court, that when certain boundaries are called for, to extend the lines to them, without regard to the distance. There is no doubt, however, that there may be exceptions to, that rule •, as where the distance is so great, as to render it morally certain that the boundaries called for were merely conjectural; or where the courses must be entirely changed to reach them. There will be some difficulty in settling the limits of the land in question; but not so great as to authorize the license which the Jury have taken. The line calling for William Flill’s land, may be extended that far, without taking a greater latitude than has frequently been allowed. It may, perhaps, be extended to Gladdens’ land, without violating any other principle heretofore established in cases of this sort. But whether the plaintiff can be permitted to go to Morris’s land, is at least questionable; but it does not follow, that two of the boundaries called for should not be given to him because. he cannot have the third. It is at least a case that deserves another investigation; therefore, let a new trial be granted.

Qolcock, Cheves, and Gantt, J. concurred.