Case Name: Mackay against Reynolds
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 2 Bay 474
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mackay against Reynolds.
Judges: All the Judges present.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
Mackay against Reynolds.
Columbia,
1802.
A plaintiff in support of his title.in an action of trespass, is not confined to one title only, hut may rely on as many as lie pleases, and if auy one hears him cut it is sufficient; he may even rely on possession alone, if all the o-thcrs fail.
TRESPASS to try titles to land, in Spartanburgh district. Verdict for defendant. Motion for a new trial.
The land which was the subject of this controversy, was originally the property of Reynolds the defendant, who being pressed for money, borrowed it of one Alexander, and made him an absolute conveyance of the land ; which was to be reconveyed again to him on payment of the sum borrowed. Alexander soon after conveyed the land to one Harrison, who conveyed it to Mackay the plaintiff. The money was afterwards’ tendered to Alexander, who refused to receive it. Shortly after the sale by Harrison to Mackay, the land was levied on by the sheriff of the district, and sold in consequence of a judgment prior to all the sales and conveyances, at which sale Mackay again became the purchaser, and bought in the land a second time, and got the sheriff’s deed.
In support of the plaintiff’s title, he produced his first deed from Harrison, but as some circumstances of fraud were alleged against this deed from Harrison, he offered his sheriff’s deed in evidence in support of his right; but the presiding judge (Gkimke) refused to allow this second deed to be given in evidence, ruling that the plaintiff was bound to rely on one deed or the other, and to make his election, which he refused to do, on which there was a ver-diet for defendant.
This was a motion for a new trial, for misdirection on the part of the judge, and the verdict being against law.

Opinion:
When, after argument, all the other Judges were of opinion, that the verdict should be set aside, and a new trial granted, as a man had a right to offer as many titles to land as he pleased, and should not be restricted to one only ; for, if one fails him, the other may bear him out: nay, further, if they should ail fail him, he may resort to and depend upon his possessory right alone.
Rule for new trial made absolute.
All the Judges present.