Case Name: J. B. Richardson v. Asa Moodie
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1810-05
Citations: 2 Brev. 442
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. B. Richardson v. Asa Moodie.
Judges: Bay, J., did not concur in this opinion. He, however, agreed in granting a new trial, on the ground that the case was a perplexed one, and there was a probability that justice would be more correctly done on a second trial.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 442–443

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
MAY, 1810.
J. B. Richardson v. Asa Moodie.
Ip the description contained in the grant of the land claimed by plaintiff, or defendant, if the land of another grantee should be called for, and the direction of the line called for is not mentioned, or no line should be called for, but only land generally ; and the line of plaintiff’s or defendant’s grant, should, from necessity, be the line of the elder grant called for; in such case, although the course of the line in the grant of plaintiff, or defendant, should be mentioned, upon a supposition that the course of the elder line of the land called for, is the same, and should be mistaken ; the course of the line of the elder grant shall control the course of the line of the younger grant; and if the next boundary called for should be another tncl of land, described as laying at the termination of the boundary line first called for, and the same lme should ter-mínate before it reaches the second, line called for, the direction of the first line must be pursued, without any variation, until it reaches the second boundary called for ; and cannot, after the termination of the first line called for, as a boundary, make a set-off therefrom, and assume the course'expressed in the plaintiff’s title, as the direction thereof.
Motion for a new trial. Trespass to try titles to land, tried be» fore Waties, J., in Sumter district,
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Argued 26th April, 1809, by Branding, for the defendant, and Richardson, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Although many points were made in this case, only one was de. cided. The question made and determined was, whether in a case where the line of an elder survey and grant, is called for, and the course of the line is mistaken, and at the termination of that line, another line of another tract of granted laud is called for, the party claiming by such description, can, after pursuing thei.course of the line first called for, to its termination, without reaching the' second line, or boundary called for, vary the course of his first line, so as to correspond, afterwards, with the first described course. For example, suppose the course called for should run from A to B, and the line called for should not run in that direction, but from A to C, can the first line be varied, after running to C, by running from C to 13, arid then resuming the course of the line A B, until it meets the second line called for 1
It was determined by Grimke, Brevard, and Smith, Justices, that the line A C must be continued until it meets the next boundary called for ; and that the line called for must govern the course throughout; otherwise there would be three lines instead of one, without necessity.
Bay, J., did not concur in this opinion. He, however, agreed in granting a new trial, on the ground that the case was a perplexed one, and there was a probability that justice would be more correctly done on a second trial.
New trial granted.