Case ID: scl_12/html/0255-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Nott\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Stokes vs. John Holliday.
    ■Where two tracts of land join, and one projects oí er or beyond the other, and that projection is called for, or represented in the plat of a third tract which calls, for both as a boundary, such projection shall he considered as a station, and the line shall be extended to it, although it exceed the distance called for.
    
      Ceteris paribus lines should always be closed in the manner most favo- " rabie to the oldest grant.
    This was an action of trespass to try titles. Tried at Sumter, Fall Term, 1821.
    The whole case depended upon the manner of closing the plaintiff’s lines. The question was, whether the plaintiff’s plat should be closed by the lines A. B. C. D. E» F. or by the lines A. G. M. N. O. P. or whether the distance called for on the line A. F. should he run out, which would stop at V.; and then by reversing the course, close the plat at the point, which would be intersected on the line E. D. by a line drawn parallel to the line F. E. ? The land in dispute was enclosed in the parallelogram T. and would fall within the plaintiff’s line, if his plat should be closed according to the first delineation. If not, then the defendant’s land would be excluded, and he was guilty of no trespass. The jury found for the plaintiff, and thereby established the line F. E.
    
    
      
      
    
    
      
      He Saussure Holmes, for the motion.
    
      "S, D, Miller, contra.
   Mr. Justice Nott

delivered the opinion of the court.

The first question to be decided In this case is, whether the small offset, represented by the short line M. G. should, he- fixed at the place represented in -tfie plat, or be extended to C. Ri If it should b'e fixed at M. G: the distance called for' in the original plat would extend only to IE — - The plat would then be closed by the line O. P. and would not embrace the defendant’s land. The- plaintiff’s grant Calls for Richburgh’s land, No’s l and 2. Both those tracts are bounded by straight lines ; but No. 9 projects over the other the distance of C. B. Now, we can discover no object in making the offset in that line of the plaintiff’s land, except to represent that • projection. I should therefore consider that a station to which the line should be extended, although it exceed the distance called for.— There is also another fact equally -conclusive; the line crosses a creek which must be considered a natural station ; and taking the distance from thence" laid down in the original plat, it extends to B, Í think, therefore, the line C. B. is well established. Taking the .courses and distances from them, as laid down in'the original plat, it will carry us to D. E. Then the question arises whether the lines shall be closed from E. or Whether the course shall be reversed as above stated ?

According to any theoretical rule of geometry, perhaps one method would be as correct as the other. But a rule of decision has long prevailed in this state, that in closing lines between conflicting grants, the method most favorable to the elder (ceterispdribtísJ should prevail, which is nothing more than a practical application of the common law rule, that a grant shall be construed most strongly against the grantor. The court are therefore satisfied with the verdict, and the motion must be refused.

Justices Huger, Gantt, Johnson and Richardson, con-cuvred¿