Tumbleston v. Rumpel

Citations

• 43 S.C. 275
• 21 S.E. 84
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 159

Syllabus

<p>1. Betterment Law — Complaint.—An allegation that plaintiffs at the time they took title to land believed that they were receiving a valid and indefeasible title in fee simple to the same, and that at the time that they made improvements on the land were “in possession, believing themselves to be the owners in fee,” is not an allegation that the plaintiffs “believed, at the time of purchase^ that the title was good in fee.”</p> <p>2. An Exception as to an immaterial expression in the order of the Circuit Judge, not considered.</p> <p>3. Betterment IjAW — Complaint.—Under the betterment law, as incorporated in the Revised Statutes, a party who has been adjudged not entitled to the land in controversy, may, after such judgment, proceed by summons and complaint, under section 1952, to recover from the true owner the value of all improvements put upon the land by the plaintiff in such complaint, if he, of those under whom he claims, supposed at the time of their purchase that the title was good in fee.</p> <p>4. Betterment Law — -Complaint—Amendment.—The complaint having failed to allege that the plaintiff, or those under whom he claimed, supposed at the time of purchase that the title was good in fee, it was properly held bad on demurrer, but it was a proper case for amendment, and leave to amend should have been granted.</p> <p>5. Per MoIver, C. J. The force that should be given to the Revised Statutes of 1893, stated.</p> <p>Mr. Chief Justice MoIver dissenting.</p>