53 S.C. 90 | S.C. | 1898
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This action arose out of a dispute as to the boundary line between two tracts of land. The
and distances on the plat must be made to conform to such established boundaries of adjacent landowners.” The deed under which the defendant claimed referred to the plat, which was attached to it, and the presiding Judge charged correctly that the plat thereby became a part of the deed. State v. Crocker, 49 S. C., 242. In the case of Thompson v. Brannon, 14 S. C., 542, the Court says: “In locating lands the following rules are resorted to, and generally in the • order stated: 1. Natural boundaries. 2. Artificial marks. 8. Adjacent boundaries; and 4. Courses and distance. Fullward v. Graham, 1 Rich., 491. See, also, the cases of Bradford v. Pitts, 2 Mill’s Const. R., 115; Starke v. Johnson, 2 McC., 9.” It is true, that under peculiar
The fourth exception complains of error as follows: “4. In charging the jury that the defendant’s possession must go no further than his ‘paper title or color of title;’ whereas, in law and in fact the possession of the defendant controlled the whole of the Brown tract down to the Bush line.” This exception is disposed of by what was said in considering the third exception.
The eighth exception submits error on the part of the presiding Judge as follows: “8. In charging on the facts that the defendant’s possession went no further than the limits of his paper title, when the defendant had sworn that he was put in possession of the disputed land three years before the plat was made, and independent of it, and was still in possession of it.” This exception is disposed of by what was said in considering the third exception.
It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and the case remanded to that Court for a new trial.