Case Name: Joseph Binda and Wife, et al., vs. M. M. Benbow
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1855-12
Citations: 9 Rich. 15
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph Binda and Wife, et al., vs. M. M. Benbow.
Judges: Wardlaw, Withers and Glover, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 15–30

Head Matter:
Joseph Binda and Wife, et al., vs. M. M. Benbow.
In trespass to try title, it is sufficient to prove a trespass at any time within ten years before commencement of the action.
BEFORE MUNRO, J., AT SUMTER, FALL TERM, 1855.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
“ The late General Thomas Sumter, by a conveyance duly executed, and bearing date the 15th of May, 1814, conveyed to his son, Thomas Sumter, Jr., three thousand acres of land, a portion of which had been originally granted to General Sumter himself, in four or five separate tracts. The balance of the land had been granted to the following named persons : to Thomas Bosher three hundred acres, date of grant 29th September, 1765 ; to Thomas Anderson one hundred acres, date of grant the same year; to James Oook one hundred and fifty acres, granted same year, and to Litson three hundred acres in September, 1774. All the' above mentioned grants had been included in a survey made by one Adam McWillie, whose plat bears date the lóthMay, 1805, and is referred to in General Sumter’s conveyance to his son, which conveyance was duly recorded on the 15th of October, 1814. No intermediate conveyance from either of the above mentioned grantees, to General Sumter, was introduced in evidence. Two distinct trespasses were alleged to have been committed by the defendant within the limits of the McWillie survey, the first of which is partly on one of the grants to Thomas Sumter for four hundred and fifty acres, and is designated on Surveyor Bronson’s plat, by the letters R, S, T and Q, and partly on the Bosher grant. The other trespass is marked on the same plat as the residence of Henry Benbow, and is on the Bosher grant.
“ The question on the circuit, and it is to that the plaintiffs’ first ground of appeal is directed, was, whether the first mentioned trespass .was really within .the limits of the Sumter grant; and, if so, whether there was sufficient evidence of a trespass on the part of the defendant to entitle the plaintiffs to maintain ejectment. Bronson’s survey was, to say the least of it, exceedingly imperfect; for according to the testimony of Wm. Butler, an intelligent witness, and who had himself occupied the premises in question, it was more than doubtful if the trespass is not exclusively ^within the limits of the Bosher grant. Conceding, however, the Surveyor’s location of this trespass to be correct; there was certainly no proof that the defendant either put his son Pinckney in possession of the land, or that he has ever asserted any claim to it since his son took possession of it, which was in the fall of 1851. The witness Butler said, that either in 1842 or 1843 the defendant put him in the possession of the premises in question, and that he remained there for six or seven years, and that in the fall of 1851 Pinckney Benbow took possession of it, and has occupied it ever since; that at the time Pinckney went into possession of it he was acting for himself, and owned the hands which he worked, and that he has never heard the defendant assert any claim to the land since his son took possession of it. It is true, that in answer to a general question, as to whether the defendant claimed all the land within his lines, he did reply, “I suppose he does, but I don’t know anything about his lines.” Nelson, another witness, said, “ Pinckney Benbow’s field was claimed by himself in 1852, I lived with him at the time.” The defendant’s trespass at the point occupied by Henry Benbow was clearly established, but as the plaintiffs produced no conveyance from the grantee to the ancestor, it became necessary to establish a title by possession within the limits of the McWillie survey. On this point the testimony was as follows:
“ David Ragan said, himself and his brother Richard, in 1816, cultivated an old field on the Litson grant; they got permission from General Sumter; thinks his brother cultivated it the following year, but is not certain; the field had been cleared some years before witness and his brother planted it; is not certain if Terry ever planted it; Anderson lie thinks was there two or three years, but is not certain; does not know under whom either Anderson or Terry held; he knows of no possession by Sumter or by his tenants within the McWillie survey, except that of himself and brother ; witness knows the Rene Richbourg field; has known it for fifty years ; Richbourg never cultivated it; he cultivated the Well’s old field about a year, and moved away in 1811.
“ John Gohia,"another witness, said he was seventy-six years of age, and had lived near the land all his life-time, but had never known either the Sumters or their tenants to occupy any part of the land within the lines of the McWillie survey.
“I thought that- the plaintiffs had entirely failed to prove that at the commencement of the action the defendant was a trespasser on the Sumter grant; and furthermore, that they had also failed to establish that either they themselves, or those under whom they claimed, had ever maintained a title by possession within the limits of the McWillie survey, so as to enable them to maintain ejectment against one in the adverse occupancy of the Bosher grant. Entertaining these view's of the case, I granted the defendant’s motion for a non-suit.”
The plaintiffs appealed, and now moved this Court to set aside the nonsuit, and order a new trial, on thejgrounds :
1. The title of the plaintiffs to the land covered by the grant to General Sumter was fully and clearly proved. It was also proved that the defendant wh'o sets up claim to the land, put his son, P. G. Benbow, who makes no claim thereto, in possession of a portion of the land covered by said grant: And this, it is respectfully submitted, was sufficient proof of a trespass, and his Honor erred in holding the contrary.
2. The'plaintiffs established title to the remainder of the tract by proving a survey made for their ancestor in 1805, and possession by Rene Richbourg, as tenant, though not for five years, and another field cultivated by Richard and David Ragin, and Anderson and Terry, amounting together to more than five years’, continuous possession, commencing in 1816 ; the Ragins were proved to be the tenants of General Sumter, and it ought to have been left to the jury to say whether Anderson and Terry were not also tenants of plaintiffs’ ancestor. Defendant’s trespass upon the land within the McWillie plat, was satisfactorily proved.
Richardson, Be ¡Saussure, for appellants.
Moses, Bellinger, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
O'Neall, J.
The case of Watson vs. Hill, 1 Strob. 78, decided, that where a defendant trespasses upon the land of a plaintiff who may be in possession, the latter has an election to sue either in trespass to try title, or in trespass quare clausum fregit. For the reasoning whereby that conclusion was attained, I refer to the opinion delivered by myself, Dec. 1846; it will, I think, when, deliberately considered, be satisfactory to all w-ho are in search of truth.
This shows, that even a casual trespasser may he sued by any one having title, in trespass to try title, or in trespass quare clausum fregit. For the title draws the possession to it, and either action may be sustained. This being so, it must much more follow, that where one takes possession of land and holds it for years, and then glides out of possession, he is liable to be sued by the owner Until the Statute will protect him.
In this case the defendant by his tenant Butler, took possession of the Sumter grant in 1842 or 1843, and kept it for six or seven years, when he vacated it, and soon after his son Pinckney is found in possession. Without saying that a jury might have inferred this to be a continuation of the defendant's possession, it is sufficient to say, that the plaintiffs having shown the defendant to be a trespasser within their close, within the last ten years before suit brought, they are entitled to recover against him the land, and such damages as the jury may think them entitled to, unless the defendant can protect himself by a paramount title, in himself, or others.
There is no hardship in this, for if he has been an accidental trespasser, he can avoid the consequences of further resisting the plaintiff's title, by disclaiming title, tendering the damages and costs.
But, if he does not choose to do this, and rests on the general issue plea, he then places himself in this condition, 1st, that he denies, that he did within ten years before suit brought, commit the trespass, or 2d, if he did enter on and possess the land, that then he was not a trespasser, inasmuch, as he had a good and sufficient title to the land.
In this case, the defendant went to trial under the general issue, it was proved that from 1842 or 1843, for six or seven years, he had been in possession of the plaintiffs' close; that falsified his plea, and the plaintiffs ought to have gone to the jury.
The survey made 'by McWillie of all these separate grants of land for General Sumter, the grantor of the plaintiffs' ancestor, fifty years ago, with every evidence of possession for ten years within its limits, would have been sufficient evidence of title to have put the defendant on proof of his title paramount thereto. It is said there is no proof of such possession. That was unquestionably the case below, but the plaintiffs may be more fortunate on another occasion, and thus right may be brought about.
The motion to set aside the nonsuit is granted.
Wardlaw, Withers and Glover, JJ., concurred.