History
  • No items yet
midpage
Eargle v. Moak
257 S.C. 359
S.C.
1971
Check Treatment
Lewis, Justice:

This is an action in equity to determine the correct boundary line between the lands of appellant and the respondents. Each relied upon their respective, conflicting plats to locate the boundary in dispute and no request was made that the court order a separate survey. The issues in this appeal are solely factual and were resolved in the lower court against the contentions of appellant by concurrent findings of the master and the circuit judge.

Under settled principles, concurrent factual findings by the master and the trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are without evidentiary support or are against the clear preponderance of the evidence. Metze v. Metze, 231 S. C. 154, 97 S. E. (2d) 514.

A detailed review of the testimony would serve no useful purpose. The plats made by the surveyors, who were separately employed by the parties, were introduced in evidence, together with older plats; and each surveyor testified fully as to the basis upon which he located the property line. There was also testimony by the parties and their respective witnesses as to the occupancy of the land.

*361There is no contention that the findings are without evidentiary support and, upon a careful review of the record, we are convinced that they are in accord with the preponderance of the evidence, which requires affirmance.

Judgment affirmed.

Moss, C. J., and Bussey, Brailsford and Littlejohn, JJ-, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Eargle v. Moak
Court Name: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Date Published: Dec 29, 1971
Citation: 257 S.C. 359
Docket Number: 19342
Court Abbreviation: S.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.