Case Name: GUERARD v. JENKINS
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1908-04-24
Citations: 80 S.C. 223
Docket Number: 6897
Parties: GUERARD v. JENKINS.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Gary and Jones concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 223–232

Head Matter:
6897
GUERARD v. JENKINS.
1. Pbeadings — Demurrer. — A comelaint stating facts, which if proved would entitle plaintiff to any relief, is not demurrable on the ground that the facts alleged show that plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for.
Mr, Chief Justice Pope dissents.
9. Ibid. — Ibid. — Limitation of Actions. — If a cause of action may be uereated by the plea of the statute of limitations, it must be pleaded and cannot be made effective by demurrer.
Before Gage, J., Beaufort, September, 1907.
Reversed.
Action by Arthur R. Guerard' against Esther E. Jenkins, Robert E. Jenkins, Heyward Jenkins and Stockton Jenkins. Prom order sustaining demurrer, plaintiff appeals.
Mr. W. Huger FitzSimons, for appellant,
cites: Plaintiff can maintain action to remove cloud from title: 71 S. C.. 522; 15 S. C., 337; 17 Ency., 669; 43 S. C., 38; 33 S. C., 404. No allegation of possession by defendants and adverse claim: 76 S. C., 517; 14 S. C., 493; 26 & C., 497; 26 S. C., 244. Court of equity has jurisdiction to set aside a tax deed: 57 S. C„ 78; 6 Pom. Eq. Jur., Sec. 734; 158 U. S., 375. Tax deed is void: Code 1902, 864; 1 Bail., 467; 4 Strob., 295 ; 34 S. C., 364; 33 La. Ann., 1162; 10 R. I., 358 ; 90 Ala., 178; 40 la., 158; 18 Ark., 441; 41 la., 378; Black Tax Titles, Sec. 282. The two-year limitation tax act can not affect a suit in equity: 70 S. C., 315; 142 U. S., 664; 6 Col., 317; Black Tax Titles, Sec. 497; 41 S. €., 540.
Mr. W. S. Tillinghast, contra:
Insists this case is ruled by Pollitzer v. Beinkempen, 76 S. C., 517.
April 24, 1908.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Woods.
This is an appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, and the question is not 'whether the complaint states a cause of action from which the relief asked for could flow, but whether, on proof of facts alleged, the plaintiff would be entitled to any relief at all.
It appears from the complaint the defendants are in possession, claiming to own the land in dispute; and plaintiffs assert a legal title against them. The case of Pollitzer v. Beinkempen, 76 S. C., 517, is conclusive against t'he complaint as a statement of a cause of action to quiet the plaintiff's title to* one-half interest in the land. But taking the complaint as true, it states a cause of action for the recovery of possession of one-half interest in the land from which, according to plaintiff's allegations, he was unlawfully ousted by his co-tenants, the ouster consisting in making a deed of conveyance purporting to convey the entire property. There is nothing in Pollitzer v. Beinkempen opposed to this view, for that case was heard on an agreed statement of facts which showed, as the Court held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief of any kind.
The fact that the plaintiff asks for a removal of the cloud on his title, when the allegations do not warrant relief of that character, does not prevent his having any other relief to which the facts entitle him. Independent S. F. Co. v. Richland Lodge, 70 S. C., 572, 50 S. E., 499; McMillan v. McMillan, 77 S. C., 511.
If it be true, this action, regarded as a legal action to' recover possession of real estate, may be defeated by the plea of the statute of limitations, that plea must be set up in the answer; it cannot be made effective by demurrer. Code of Procedure, Section 94; Jones v. Boykin, 70 S. C., 315, 49 S. E., 877.
For these reasons the judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed.
Messrs. Justices Gary and Jones concur.