Case ID: scl_16/html/0184-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Gcmtt.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Lahiffe & M. O. Lahiffe vs. John Hunter.
    
      ^Trespass to try title, on writ on enquiry., Plaintiff’s'declaration claimed a plantation called ‘ Green Grove,’ lying &c. but set out no metes or bounds: Held that there was no such uncertainty of description, as to afford cause for arresting the judgment.
    
    
      Defendant was not alloioed, in mitigation of damages, to give evidence of his having been put in possession of the premises, by the verdict of a jury, on a trial for forcible entry;
    
    
      JVor that since the bringing of the action, he had been appointed guardian of the person and estate of- one of the plaintiffs. -
    
    This was an action of trespass, to try title to a plantation called Green Grove, described in the declaration as lying on the N. E. side of the road to Ashley ferry, but no metes or bounds were set forth.
    The case had been placed on the writ of enquiry docket. To diminish the damages, the defendant offered the evidence of a magistrate, who had tried a case of forcible entry and detain-er in 1802, for the purpose of shewing that the’ defendant was put into possession of this tract of land by the verdict of ájury.-This evidence was rejected. The defendant also offered evidence to shew that he had been appointed guardian, by the court of equity, of the-person and estate of M. O. Lahiffe, in February, 1821; which was likewise overruled. It was proved that the land was worth from $150 to $200 pr. annum, and that the plaintiff Mary Lahiffe had sustained particular inconvenience from having been kept out of possession of Green Grove. On the part of the defendant, it was proved that the land was very poor, and a support could with difficulty be made from its cultivation. The defendant had been in possession for nine or ten years. A verdict was found for the plaintiffs, with sixteen hundred dollars damages. A former jury had given two thousand dollars damages and the present finding was on a new trial. The defendant again moves for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, on the following grounds:
    1st. On the ground of the rejection of the evidence in. relation to the defendants having been put ir
    the ground of uncei 2d. On declaration. ,in the»
    3d. Excessive damages.
    4th. Rejection of evidence of ship.
    5th- On the inadmissibility of 'inconvenience sustained by Mary Labi of Green Grove, &c. bulan ssioit
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gcmtt.

The only question for the consideration of the jury, on the execution of this writ of enquiry, was the extent of damages which the plaintiff had sustained. No question of title was to be tried. Had the defendant’s possession been a lawful one, it was incumbent on him to have pleaded it in justification. The evidence of possession, under colour of law, was therefore properly rejected. The objection to the generality of description, in the declaration comes too late after verdict. Neither can it avail the defendant that he had been chosen guardian of the person and estate of M. O. Lahiffe, after action brought, besides .the interest of the ward will remain in his hands, over which Mary Lahiffe will have no control. On the ground of excessive damages, it is to be considered that this is a second verdict; .a former jury gave two thousand dollars, and although the land was unproductive, still it was a convenient habitation to the plaintiff, as well as others, and the proofs offered, established its .value at $150 or $200 pr. year. After an adverse possession of nine or ten years, the defendant cannot with justice complain of the verdict of the jury. The question of damages was one . proper for the jury alone, and although the damages when viewed .in reference to the value of the land, appear to be high, yet it is be considered that they are less than were allowed by a formqjj jury. The court think that a new trial should be refused.

Cross Gray, for the motion.

Hunt, contra.

Hay, Mott, Johnson and Huger, Justices, concurred.