State v. Evans

Citations

• 33 S.C. 184
• 11 S.E. 697
• 1890 S.C. LEXIS 125

Syllabus

<p>1. AVhore the State sues in her own courts for the recovery of real property, and it appears that she has divested herself by grant of the land in dispute, she must, like any other plaintiff, prove title in herself by showing that she regained it by purchase or escheat, or in some other way.</p> <p>2. Where land is conveyed to “A, land commissioner [which is a public office created by statute], his .successors, .their heirs and assigns forever, * * * to have and to hold to the proper use and behoof of the said-party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever,” with warranty “to the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns,” the State cannot maintain an action for the recovery of this land, because the deed does not convey to her the legal title.</p> <p>3. It would seem that the legislature never intended that the title to lands purchased by the land commissioner should be taken to the State, but rather to the land commissioner, so that resales could be readily made by him. °</p> <p>4. The statute of uses did not vest in the State title to land conveyed to the land commissioner and his successors, for they were charged, inter alia, with the duties of dividing, selling, and leasing.</p>