Case Name: John Woodward vs. Levi Moore
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1856-01
Citations: 9 Rich. 340
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Woodward vs. Levi Moore.
Judges: O’Neall, Withers and Whither, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 43
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
John Woodward vs. Levi Moore.
Where the plaintiff in trespass guare elausum fregit, recovers hut S5, the only plea being the general issue, he is not entitled to costs under the Act. 7 Stat. 297.
BEFORE WHITNER, J„ AT HORRY, SPRING TERM, 1855.
The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
' “ This was an appeal from the clerk’s taxation of costs. The action was trespass quare elausum fregit, and the plaintiff had recovered a verdict of five dollars. It was said and conceded that defendant had, under the general issue, relied on title, and that in fact on the trial of the case the title of the parties to the land was contested. The clerk had taxed full costs against the defendant, I thought incorrectly, and an order was granted setting aside this taxation. The clause of the Act is in the following words : ‘ That hereafter in all actions of trespass to try titles to lands, in all actions of trespass on the case, in all actions of trover, and in all actions of detinue, or any of them, brought to establish or try the right of title in any kind of property, if the plaintiff establishes his right of property therein, he shall in every such case, recover and have his full costs of suit, wherein the verdict shall be above four dollars.’ 7 Stat. 297, Sec. 22.”
The plaintiff appealed and now moved this Court to reverse the order made by his Honor on the grounds:
1. Because the title to the land in question being in dispute, as was admitted by defendant’s counsel, the verdict was for an amount sufficient to carry costs.
2. Because the .said order was mother respects, it is respectfully submitted, contrary to law.
Simonton, for appellant.
-, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Glover, J.
The court is satisfied with the construction of the clause of the sta'tute copied in the report, and with the order granted.
It is only necessary to add that the question is reserved, whether the action of trespass quare clausum fregit, to which the defendant pleads liberum tenementum, is an action " brought to establish or try the right of title," &c., and within the provision of the Act.
Motion dismissed.
O'Neall, Withers and Whither, JJ., concurred.
Wardlaw, J., absent.
Motion dismissed.