The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-10-07


\ ledge Prince few days ago filed
- oscision In the case OF John H.
ODev Lumber Company VS.. b. b. sey-
Uoor and Ada A. Seymour. which
ves argued before him at the October
torn Of court. 1907. The plaintiff was
s>Drsssnted by L. ID. Jennings. Esq.
- the defendants by Davis ID. and
u d. Noise. EsarsL .l.. .e
n dsclsion 10 Of much importance
- Interest to all who are engaged
- sAs humber business or In the sell
- or buying OF lumber and timber
X s1uAes. ~ Il decides point not hithsr-
- nafsod I'm the courts Of this State In
- = 80 involving rights OF way for ium-
- roads.
TAs decision reads in part as fol-
1sxss
I&is was an action Instituted by
\ p>aintin. . corporation. against de-
o.n1anes. for injunction TO restrain
Gpoun1ants from interfering with the
rou11ding Of . tramway across GER
ca1o tract Of land owned by defend
--on0 and known a. the seymour Home
< r>nos.- PaintlR founds its right to
epur1vuct said tramway across de-
oDn1anrs land under q contract or
ossr sss mp In the complaint between
- Defendants and ID. w. Alderman
\ QDas Company. ana ths assignment Of
eos1 contract by d. w. Alderman q
osna Company to Harper As Baker.
o4 by Harper = Baker to plaintifr.
~ ths time OF Ming the complaint.
Dh1nsi6 applied to and obtained from
9Uogs Purdy IN injunction restrain
- 'dsfspdants from further interfer-
ense with plaintiffs tramway. This
- % co1rss. temporary injunc-
- and intended 90 ~ be. Thereaf-
- dsfsndants having answered the
epr1plaipt moved before Judge Kiugh
- llnsolvs this injunction. but Judge
= 0oDA required plaintiff 70 give the
upm1 bond and continued the injunc-
90 He then referred u to the mas
- - take the testimony and report
- ~ The issuss Of law and fact. In
'-naR sngwsr dsfsndants deny the
tsoB&t oe ths plaintiff to build and cpe-
- ne said trsmwsy under the con-
Nn>e and assismmsnts set out In the
ssnphisN and 81 up . counter claim
- damasss for the unlawful entry
- Gsspass on their land.
- case comes before me on the
ouD<gt % the master ana exceptions
Uhopoto ~ both plainu6 ana defend
'on14 In his report the master re-
onsads that the complaint be dis
Un1ba. tAs temporary Injunction dis
ssnvpd. ana defendants allowed judg-
Dss& for three hundred dollars.
s,x6tGS -- ,y-~a
Afasr rsviswins the case and citing
aushoritiss Judge Prince concludes his
.sDa.1on ~ follows:
II - not think can be mistaken
- heidins that the Rights OF Way
Wsrs intended 90 be and are merely
aDDortenant to the grant OF the grow
~ pine timber. for u n TO be noted
- the grant OF the easement Is In
aas same clause. and Il ~ coupled
wath the grant OF the timber. follow
30 iHnsdiasely after a description of
~ land on which the growing timber
- granted and In these words: "To-
osthsr with exclusive right of ways
~ trsm-roads or railroads. cart or
wagon roads on. over. across and
shroush the said lands for term Of
ssn years from the date hereof" etc.
II should also be noted that by the
Drovisions OF this contract. grantee
wss b cut and remove timber within
!. tso yesrs. but II for any cause II
should have failed to remove the tim
Der In the time limited. Il should have
NC years more for that purpose by
naking certain annual compensation
% srantors. An extension Of time
Tor use OF right OF way Is provided
nor upon payment OF $40 per year to
grantors for such privilege.
Now TO me II Is absolutely unthink-
able that srantors should have intend
"a to convey to grantees such various
and varied rights Of way for any pur-
pose other than what was necessary
Tor the removal by the purchaser. its
successors and assigns. OF the timber
purchased. cannot agree with the