Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1905

Independent Steam Fire Engine Co. v. Richland Lodge

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 6, 1905 · Gary

50 S.E. 499; 70 S.C. 572; 1905 S.C. LEXIS 229 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Melton Belser , for appellants, cite: Legal title to partnership property may be held by one partner, but in equity is subjected to rights of partners: 135 U.S. 621 ; 22 Enc., 2 ed., 93, 94; 35 S.C. 314 . Masons are in possession of third story as owners, not as tenants: 1 Wn., 439 , 18, 83, 94; 1 Spear, 429; 18 Ency., 2 ed., 177, et seq. , 207; 1 Speer, 429; 57 S.C. 154 ; Wood. Land. Ten., secs. 285, 288; Challis Real Prop., 197, 200; 15 L.R.A., 231; 35 S.C. 314 ; 3 Rich. Eq., 160. As to construction of phrase, "Masonic Hall: " 19 L.R.A., 26, 262; 2 Wn., 7 ; 15 S.C. 32 ; 16 Gray., 327; 7 Allen, 125; 23 W. Va., 187 ; 129 Ind., 38 ; 128 Ind., 38; 104 Fed.R., 716; 14 S.C. 162 ; 84 Me., 386 ; 18 (U.S.), L. ed., 502; 3 Brev., 205; 103 Pa., 608 ; 3 Allen, 9; 3 Gray., 142; 17 Pa., 96 ; 15 Pa., 500; 33 Pa., 415 ; 21 S.C. 51 ; 54 S.C. 288 , 440 ; 10 Ency., 400. Messrs. Barron Ray , contra, cite: Owner of fee may have parties enjoined from unauthorized use of property 60 S.C. 391 . The agreement cannot be construed to carry to defendants a fee defeasible on condition subsequent: 15 S.C. 34 ; 65 S.C. 256 ; 13 L.R.A., 158. Easement has been abandoned not to be used again and is forfeited: Wash. Eas., 701; 4 McC., 96; Jones on Eas., 849, 852; 6 Greenl., 436; 30 Me., 98 . Action of ejectment will not lie against holder of easement: 5 Rich. Eq., 334; Wash. Eas., 740; 60 S.C. 381 ; 10 S.C. 492 ; 54 S.C. 430 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gary.

This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. It will, therefore, be necessary to set out the complaint in the report of the case. The main question in the case is whether his Honor, the Circuit Judge, erred in ruling that “under the written agreement set out in the complaint, the defendants cannot lawfully use the premises described in said agreement, except as a ‘Masonic Hall’ or for masonic purposes.”

The construction placed upon the agreement by the Circuit Judge gives effect to¡ all the terms of the agreement, while that for which the appellants contend would render inoperative and ineffectual the words, “as a masonic hall,” which are plain and unambiguous. The allegations of the complaint show an invasion of the plaintiff’s rights. It is, therefore, entitled to' some relief either legal or equitable, and the complaint is not subject to demurrer when the plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatever.

These views render speculative the other questions in the case.

It is the judgment of this Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.