The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1912-06-28

MeSSrS. w l4lCOA dLU w IlICOA, I1SIllS L..
Davis. and Kelly and Kinds for re-
spondent.
"The opinion was rendered by Prof.
Rucker, of the University of South
Carolina, who was appointed by me
in the place of Mr.. Justice Woods, dis
qualified, as in the above mentioned
case of Flager VS.. Atlantic Coast Ium-
ber corporation, in which he came TO
the conclusion that the facts were IN
all essential respects similar to those
in the case of Flager, SO South Caro-
~ lima reports, page 32S, and followed
the rule that he had before announced.
NThus, you see that the reasonable tlme
doctrine was first announced In the
Flaser case and subsequently reaf-
frmed in the McClary case, both OF
which decisions were written by Prof.
Rucker.
"subsequently, in a case that ap-
pears in 90 South Carolina reports
mage 1858. being entitled the Atlantic
Coast Lumber corporation VS.. Litch-
field. Mr.. Chief Justice Jones delivered
the opinion Of the court, in which he
~Asays. .'The timber deed and contract in
ouestion is substantially in the terms
of the deed and contract construed IN
Flager VS.. Atlantic Coast Lumber cor
poration, 80 South Carolina, 32S, and
McClary VS.. Atlantic Coast Lumber
corporation, Il S. E., 145, and it IS con-
ceded by respondent that the cases
warrant reversal if the court adheres
tn the construction therein made. the
court is not disposed to disturb the
authority of those cases.
Mr. Fuckers Reward.
-"It simply means that we adopt the
law as laid down by Prof. Rucker IN
the two cases mentioned and that
Jones did not write the opinion but
simply. in less than a half sheet, sus-
tained an opinion of Prof. Rucker COW
ering many typewriter pages, cover
ing this subject most exhaustlVely,
and was done in such thorough man
nor that the legislature gave him COM
Mensation to the amount of $3.50 for
his painstaking and learned decision
later
he would abide by.
sDespite the. fact that the Flager
case and McClary case both preceoeo
in point of time and were authorizes
Of the Litchfeld case, we find the late
chief Justice using this language: i
wrote the opinion of the supreme
&court in g decision directing that this
corporation should within reason
able time remove standing timber 1t
had bought, rather than hold it lnde-
fnitely and thus deprive the land
owner of the use of his land. The
facts are. he wrote no such opinion.
That opinion was the Flagler opinion;
it was reafirmed in full and at length
again in the McClary case; nor can
Mr.. Jones plead ignorance of this, be-
cause he sat in both cases and subse-
quently in the Litchfeld case, refer
red to, and based his opinion solely
npon these two cases
Wants to Know.
"Then, 1 ask you this question: Does
he now say that he wrote the opinion
settling the reasonable time doctrine,
or does he say that that op;uicn was
was written by Prof. Marion Rucker::
irrespective of what his answer Llay
be to that, / ask him if he did not
mean to leave that impression upon
the Chesterfield audience. Will any
single man in the audience deny that
that is the only meaning that can be
attached to his language as it ap-
pears in the Columbia State?
"Why did not Jones, in the case OF
Wilson VS.. Alderman & Sons, lay down
his doctrine? Oh, no; he, in that case,
e@(see 80 South Carolina reports. page
11O), said: Plaintiff was not required
to remove said timber within rea-
sonable time but could at any time
enter upon the land, and remove all
timber suitable for milling purposes at
date of deed How different from Prof.
Rucker, who says that the law will
presume, and will enforce, that such
removal of the timber shall be within
!, sssSeaSonable time Who hit the cor