Burnett v. Crawford

Citations

• 50 S.C. 161
• 27 S.E. 645
• 1897 S.C. LEXIS 21

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence. — It is improper to ask a witness if he did not know that his grand-mother owned the land and claimed it as her own, because it is leading, and asks for an opinion.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Practice—Writing.'—Where an agreement is in writing, and is ruled out by the Court as irrelevant, the party moving its exclusion cannot afterwards object to the proof of the facts covered by it by otherwise competent testimony.</p> <p>3. Charge — Cotenants—Ejectment.—-It is proper to refuse a request which assumes that one in possession of land could not have held it adversely to his cotenant, so as to bar her previous to an alleged settlement.</p> <p>4. Presumption — Ouster—Cotenants.—The instruction that ouster of a cotenant may be presumed from lapse of twenty years, held applicable to the facts of this case.</p> <p>5. Charge — Ejectment.—In actions for possession of land, Judge may instruct the jury that plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon strength of his own title, even where both claim from common source.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Constitution.—It is contrary to sec. 26, art.V., of Con. 1895, for a Judge to state in the interrogative form to the jury facts sworn to by witnesses. Following Norris v. Clinkscales, 47 S. C., 488, and State v. Stello, 49 S. C., 488.</p>