James v. Hyman, 104 S.E.2d 353 (S.C. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
James v. Hyman, 104 S.E.2d 353 (S.C. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jack JAMES, Otis James, Geneva James McCutchen, Hester Butler, Carey Orrie, Sylvester James, Geneva James Brunson, and Eighty Other Named
v.
George HYMAN
17450.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 16, 1958.
Published opinion
104 S.E.2d 353
1958 S.C. LEXIS 72
Henry E. Davis, Esq., of Florence, for Appellants,, Messrs. McEachin, Townsend & Zeigler, of Florence, for Respondent,, Henry E. Davis, Esq., of Florence, for Appellants,
Published
PER CURIAM.

The exceptions of appellants to the decree of the circuit court have been carefully considered in the light of the record and we conclude that the decree correctly decided the controversy. The following will be stricken from it and with those deletions it will be published as the judgment of this court: “Mr. Hyman has been paying taxes on the disputed area since he owned the place (Tr. p. 30)”; and “Further no such issue is alleged in the complaint.” (Printed transcript of record, ff. 861, 2.)

Title by adverse possession was not alleged in the complaint in this action in equity to determine the boundary between the adjoining farms of the parties,[*292] and it was not an issue; indeed, it would not have been a proper issue in this case. McRae v. Hamer, 148 S. C. 403, 146 S. E. 243. Incidentally, the disputed area is relatively small — about twelve acres, which is only partly cultivatable.

Affirmed.