Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927

Solen Corporation v. Robertson

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided November 15, 1927 · Stabler, Watts, Messrs, Cothran, Beease, Carter

140 S.E. 236; 142 S.C. 56; 1927 S.C. LEXIS 177 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Nathans Williams , for appellants, cite: City estopped from interference: 106 S.C. 121 ; Dillon, Munic. Corp. (3rd Ed.), 1893; 98 N.W., 493; 35 Pac., 1002; 42 Pac., 62; 79 N.E., 296; 92 Ind., 107 ; 37 Atl., 176; 13 So., 843; 108 Pac., 910; 7 L.R.A. (N.S.), 243; 67 S.C. 515 ; 37 S.C. 334 ; 57 S.C. 507 ; 10 R.C.L., 707; 20 Ann. Cas., 429; 123 S.E., 494; 109 S.E., 285; 19 R.C. L., 1147; 299 Fed., 516; 21 C.J., 1185, 1198; 166 Ill., 530 ; 169 N.W., 741; 71 Pac., 605; 2 Dillon, Munic. Corp., Secs. 529-533. Mr. Lionel K. Legge , for respondents, cites: To acquire right to maintain obstruction in public thoroughfare there must have been adverse possession and such conduct on part of public as would amount to equitable estoppel: 57 S.C. 507 ; 129 S.C. 89 ; 132 S.C. 328 ; 37 S.C. 327 . Estoppel invoked only in exceptional cases: Dillon, Munic. Corp., Par. 667; 13 So., 289; 21 L.R.A., 62. Concurrent findings of fact by master and Circuit Judge not disturbed unless abuse of discretion shown: 134 S.C. 54 . Structure at bar a nuisance: 121 S.E., 285 ; 13 R.C.L., 186, 190. Permission to maintain same subject to revocation: Dillon, Munic. Corp. (5th Ed.), 1885. McQuillen, Munic. Corp., Sec. 1391.

Opinion of the Court

*62 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Stabler.

The contentions of the plaintiffs, with a brief statement of the controversy, are set out in the report of the master. By reference to the report, it will be seen that the master found from the testimony, as a matter of fact, that the plaintiffs failed to establish adverse possession for the statutory period, and that the evidence did not make a case in which the principle of equitable estoppel should be applied to prevent a manifest wrong or injustice; but that, on the contrary, the testimony established the fact that the maintenance of the shed over the part of the city street, and the use of the shed in connection with the conduct of business, by the present and former owners of the premises now owned by the plaintiffs, had been at all times merely and purely permissive on the .part of the city authorities. These findings of fact were concurred in by the Circuit Judge, and the plaintiffs except and impute error.

We are satisfied, from a careful examination of the record, that the Circuit Judge was amply justified under the testimony in confirming the findings and recommendations of the master, and in adopting same as the judgment of the Court below. Let the report of the master be incorporated in the report of the case.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices Cothran, BeEase and Carter concur.

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