McDaniel v. Walker

Citations

• 46 S.C. 43
• 24 S.E. 378
• 1896 S.C. LEXIS 75

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence. — In an action to abate a nuisance, and for damages for flowing lands, where the defendant claims the right to overflow by title from a common source of partnership title, and agreement, the records of two actions brought for same purpose by the owners of a tract, claiming from same source, lying between the tract of plaintiff and the dam, are competent and relevant evidence against such defence.</p> <p>2. Charge. — It is not error in the Circuit Judge to say to the jury, “I remember no evidence tending to support this defence. This being so, you will not be troubled in your investigation with the questions growing out of this defence,” after he had told the jury that the facts were entirely for them, and that he would endeavor not to intimate even an opinion in reference thereto.</p> <p>3. Evidence. — There is no evidence in this case to show that the defendant was entitled to claim a right, under his title, to flow all the lands originally owned by Hodge and Lockhart.</p> <p>4. Charge. — It is not error in a Circuit Judge to fail to charge a proposition which he was not requested to charge.</p> <p>5. Easement.. — -In order to support the claim of easement, the use must be adverse, continuous, and unbroken for twenty years.</p> <p>6. Charge — Request..—.Party desiring the jury explicitly instructed, must submit request for such instructions.</p>