Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals. Mr. James S. Verner, for appellant, cites: Action oftrespass based on possession: 91 S.C. 231; 97 S.C. 130; 86 S.C. 358; 91 S.C. 464; 95 S.C. 328; 105 S.C. 339. Effect given to judgment roll offered in evidence: 116 S.C. 11; 12 S.C. 153; 24 S.C. 355. Latent ambiguity indeed question for the jury: 92 S.C. 65; 2 Strob., 156; 1 Strob., 143; 1 Rich., 135; 22 S.C. 507; 44 S.C. 548; 67 S.C. 18; 80 S.C. 472; 61 S.C. 287; 118 S.C. 492; 26 S.C. 160; 566. Older of two deeds of same grantor takesprecedence: 71 S.C. 327; 3 Rich., 101; 5 Rich., 267; 33 S.C. 184; 14 S.C. 550; 17 S.C. 139. Defendant mustshow title in himself: 91 S.C. 234; 105 S.C. 338; 110 S.C. 478; 97 S.C. 132. Title in issue in action of trespass: 114 S.C. 380. Adverse possession question forthe jury: 110 S.C. 479; 105 S.C. 329, 341; 107 S.C. 204; 82 S.C. 215; 39 Ann. Cas., 911 note. Reference todocument not evidence of it: 37 S.C. 73; 12 S.C. 144; 58 S.C. 382. Burden of proof on claimant of realty: 71 S.C. 322; 33 S.C. 19. Messrs. Weston Aycock and U.L. Rast, for respondent, cite: Tracing title to common source: 123 S.C. 67. Possession presumed to follow legal title; how rebutted: 103 S.C. 84; 102 S.C. 395; 71 S.C. 322; 2 Strob. Eq., 113; Code of Proc., 1922, Sec. 320. Plaintiff to provetitle: 114 S.C. 381; 97 S.C. 132. Boundaries of landclaimed under color of title: 59 S.C. 115; 2 C.J., 250. Trespass cannot ripen into good
Messrs. Otts Dobson, for appellant, cite: No ambiguityin contract: 77 S.C. 92; 8 Gray 427; 134 S.W. 1164; 80 At. 217; 141 S.W. 319; and none alleged: 108 S.W. 829. Agent cannot say what insuring clause covers: 180 U.S. 308; and evidence on that is incompetent: 56 N.E. 134; 84 N.Y.S. 958; 26 S.C. 258; 9 Cyc. 591; 95 Fed. 625; 84 S.W. 1041; 63 N.E. 110; 28 So. 136; 8 N.W. 67; 9 Cyc. 590; 55 N.E. 292; 180 U.S. 132; 151 U.S. 452; 136 U.S. 287; 85 N.E. 1006; 98 P. 1075; 120 Fed. 916; 171 U.S. 688; 2 Ont. 89; 78 At. 225; 43 Am. D. 428; 7 Am. R. 638; 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1182-3, 1186. Mr. J.C. Jeffries, contra, cites: How ambiguity mayappear: 3 McC. 269; 1 McC. 258; 1 Rich. Eq. 426; 80 S.C. 472; 17 Cyc. 682; 54 L.R.A. 673. Messrs. Nicholls Nicholls cite: Minds of contractingparties did not meet: 2 H. C. 906; 31 S.C. 53. Anambiguity may be explained by parol: 29 (L. Ed.) U.S. 864; 64 S.C. 520; 50 S.C. 169; 19 Wall. 48.
Mr. Simpson cites: Should action have been sustained asbrought? Code of Proc., 132, 134; Pom. Rem. Rem. Rights, secs. 171-173, 141; 22 Ency. P. P., 169; Bliss on Code P1., secs. 54, 262; Voohies' Code, 98; Waits' Ann. Code, 122; 76 S.C. 101; 41 S.C. 408. Messrs. Bonham, Watkins Allen, contra, cite: Is theaction properly brought? 76 S.C. 101; 27 Ency., 260, 265; 26 L.E. (U.S.), 1194; 37 Id., 1013; 80 U.S. 369; 160 U.S. 475; 36 S.C. 213; 41 S.C. 408; 13 Metc., 99. Objection of want of capacity to sue should be taken bydemurrer or answer: 81 S.C. 210; 80 S.C. 472; 77 S.C. 463; 65 S.C. 116; 47 S.C. 64; 76 S.C. 101. Plaintiffis not required to show negligence: 76 S.C. 101; 41 S.C. 414; 165 U.S. 611. October 12, 1909.