The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1891-10-28
MARY BLACKS LAND.
She Has Good Title 10 1t. and Will
Hold 1t.

She Has Good Title TO 1t. and Will
Hold 1t.
THE STATE or SOUTH CAROLINA.
AHREvILLE COUNTY.
In the Common Pleas.
Mary Black, plaintiff, against Thcophllas ba-
ker admir- with the Will annexed OF James
NJ. Latimer, deceased, and lanes L. klush'
Master, Notwithstanding for Reliel.
Graydon & Graydon, Plaintiffs Attorneys.
Benet Il Cason, Defendants Attorneys.
To his Honor the Presiding Judge:
This Is All action brought by Mary Black
the plaintiff, against the defendant. TEeophi-
las Baker. admi 1iStrator with the VIII annex
ed OF James VI. Latimer, deceased, 10 recover
possession Of a tract Of land, lining abont
eighty acres now in the possession OF the SAID
administrator, and which he is seeking to sell
as the property OF Latimer, To pay the deolS
OF the estate. Latlmer uled ABOUT otIo'el, w.,
eleventh clause of which he devised this tract
to the plaintiff for life. remainder 10 her
daughters. Certain creditors OF the estate
having brought actions against the admins
traitor he filed his complaint and obtained an
order restraining them and calling upon All
creditors 10 prove their demands before the
Master To this action the planti II was nol
made a party. In this action various orders
were obtained by the administrator, under
which all OF the remaining landS" OF the estate
were sold. and the administrator was proceed
ing TO sell the land In controversy, alleging u
deficiency OF assets to pay the debts oil ltatl-
mer, when he was restrained by the pIalntlft
by an ,:Ijnnction obtained In this action. -,
Ina t.rmrr suit instituted against Carollnc
A. I.alimrr .md Mary 4. Baker, as heirs at law v
OF James VI !.fimer, deceased, the plaintlil
sought to Obtain The aid Of this Court 10 en-
force the specific .""fOrmhnce OF an alleged
contract made w,tH James VI. Latlnicr, &c
ceased, in his life tIinr. under whlch Snc
claimed title to the land IN dispute. This &C
tion was dismissed, (wthUu' prejudice to the
plaintiff.) on the ground lhn 'he evidence
was not sufficient to sustain thc 'HeGea con con,
tract: but the Master and Circuit Judge both
concurred In holding that the plaintiffs title
might be established in different form OF nc
tion. This action was thereupon Instituted 10
recover possession of the land; the complaint
alleging adverse possession by The plaintill
beyond the statutory period. The iacts OF the
case are simple, and for the most part are un-
disputed. There seems to be no douot. from
The testimony, that the paintif was put into
possession OF the land by Latimer, IN the De-
ginning of the year lS60. and that she remain
ed IN possession until 1883, living upon it,
working IT, clearing portion ol u. erectlns 9
improvements on IL, aud receiving the prohts
Her possession seems to have had all the ele'
ments which according to the books, estab'
lish title by adverse possession.
1t was l. adverse; ., actual 3, notorious; j.
exclusive; 5, under claim OF title. GSee
American and English Encyclopedia OF Law,
o. 22S.) There was nothing wanting on her
part curing all this time, TO assert her right ol
ownership. Bolin Allen one OF the witnesses
testified that he rented the land from her, and
that she had exclusive control Of the place
and that when asked 10 sell. she refused hef
consent-that she occupied. worked ana con.
trolled the place as her own property-that
I,atlmer said that the plaintif shoCld always
have the place as home for herself and heI
children and that he would take no step IN
regard to the place wt9oTt @nS hef Gonsen is 10 the
same effect-that the plaintilf ana ner emil
dren were in sole possession from lsGo 10 1888
and that her boys worked the place-heard
Latirner say that 1t was plaintiffs place. that
her boys had spent everything, and that he
intended that She and her girls should have
1t. Here then, we have the testimony OIL Two
disintereSted witnesses to the adverse ana en-
elusive occupancy OF the place Tor twenty-five
years with claim Of title and exclusive. en-.
ioyment Of the profits. and at the same time
;, recognition OF her ownership by Latimer,
which perfected by the lapse OF the statutory
perlod. did not need the devise Of the elev-
enth clause Of his Will to give her legal title.
A further view Of the issues involved In the
case is presented by the plaintih, Is, that II
Che has no other claim TO the land, but that
derived from the will of Latimer, she should
have been made party to any proceeding to
sell her land; that she had the right 10 con-
test the validity of the claims which have
been set up against the estate OF james NJ:
whole estate and 10 satisfy which IL Is now
proposed TO sell her laud.
And the following matters of fact:
/. That James NJ Latiiner once owned The
land in controversy.
2. That in the year 1860 he put the plaintiff
in possession of the said land, and that she re-
mained in possession of it, cultivated 1T, and
received the profits from il, until the year
1888.
). That plaintiff during her occupancy OF
the said land, claimed the ownership thereof,
and exercised all proper acts of ownership.
4. That James NJ. Latimer, during the pc.
riod OF her occupancy. recognized her as the
owner of the land, and repeatedly declared
that he intended it as home for herself and
daughters.
5. That the administrator has received the
rents OF the place since 1887, and that the rem
tai value thereof Is about $50.
G. That the said Latimer, by his last VIII
and testament, devised the land TO herself
for life remainder 10 her daughters.
AS conclusions OF law:
!. That the plaintiff acquired title to the
land In controversy, by adverse possession,
before the death OF Latimer. and is entitled TO
recover the possession, and hundred dollars
damages as claimed.
2. That before the interest Of the plhintih
and her daughters under the will OF Latimer
could be affected by any legal proceedings TO
sell their land, they should have been made
parties to such proceedings.
Respectfully submitted.
w. A. LEE, Special Master.