Case ID: scl_4/html/0247-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wilds, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1808.
    Calhoun v. Perrin.
    If the defendant obtains possession as tenant of the plaintiff, he shall not be permitted to dispute the plaintiff’s title, unless he should afterwards acquire an adverse title, and give th® plaintiff notice thereof. And even in that case, he cannot avail himself of actual possession without producing Ms title, to show his right of possession.
    In such case-, where the tenant disputes the title, and does not defend as tenant, notice to quit is not necessary.
    Present, Waties, Bat, Brevard, Wilds, and Smith, Justices, Grimke, J., absent.
    T^at the parties afterwards quarrelled; whereupon, the plaintiff demanded rent for the use of the premises, which the defendant re» fused to pay, saying I did not believe the spring belonged to the plaintiff, or that he had a good title to the same. It did not clearly appeauwhether this demand of rent was made six months prior to the commencement of the action; but there was evidence from which the jury jnight conclude that it was so. The defendant moved for a nonsuit, and contended, that the plaintiff was not intitled to recover, because he had not produced and proved a lawful title to the premises in question: It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff de. manded of the defendant to surrender the possession or to pay rent» The District Court overruled the motion for a nonsuit. The defend, ant then gave some evidence to show that notice to quit was not given within six months prior to the issuing out the writ in this case; and that before the six months elapsed, the defendant had quitted the possession. The judge charged' the jury to find for the plaintiff, in case they should be of opinion the evidence was sufficient to.indu'ce them to believe that the defendant went into possession of the premises by permission of the plaintiff as his tenant; and that he af-terwards refused to recognize his tenancy, and intended to dispute his title. But that if the jury should believe from the evidence that the defendant had never disputed the plaintiff’s title, and only; Motion for a nonsuit. The action was trespass to try titles, tried before Brevard, J., in Abbeville district. The subject of contest was a spring of water. It appeared from the report of the case by the judge who presided, at the trial, that the plaintiff had given the defendani leave by parol to use the spring in question, and that the defendant had enclosed it with a rail fence and used it some time. claimed the benefit of notice as tenant at will, then it would be? necessary to inquire and ascertain whether Ire had received half a year’s notice to quit before the suit was brought. For that a tenant at will, is to be regarded as tenant from year to year, and is intitled ._.. to notice.
    Yerdict for plaintiff.
    The motion in this court was argued by Yancey, for the defendant ; and Bowie, contra. Cited Co. Litt. 57. 4 Com. Dig. 63. That this action was not to be considered as governed by the same rules as an action of ejectrhe’nt; and that the tenant may dispute his landlord’s title.
   Wilds, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. There was evU dence that the defendant had questioned the plaintiff’s title. The defendant must be considered in the light of a tenant holding over,- or as a trespasser. The action is brought to try title. The defendant has not disclaimed, but puts the plaintiff on proof of bis title. The rule is, that the plaintiff must recover on his own strength. But this rule is subject to the exception which has been insisted on, that if the defendant gains possession by the permission of the plaintiff* he shall not be permitted afterwards to dispute the plaintiff’s title j unless he entered for a definite period, and afterwards acquired an adverse title, and gave the plaintiff notice of it. There is no good ground upon which the defendant can in this case contend for six months notice to quit; but if there is, still the evidence was fairly left to the jury, who, by their verdict, have negatived the presump* tion that he not notice.

Motion discharged.