
    Charles D. Young vs. Alexander Watson.
    In trespass to try titles, where the defendant has not acquired his possession by a tortious eviction, or actual disseizin, the plaintiff must make out a perfect title in himself.
    It is necessary to show that the land has been granted, either by the production of the grant, or by proof of such possession in the plaintiff, or some one from whom he derives title, as will authorize the presumption of a grant.
    A possession of sixteen years, which terminated in 1791, insufficient for that purpose ; and the plaintiff producing no other title, was nonsuited.
    Before Earle, J., at Charleston, May Term, 1839.
    Trespass to try titles to certain lands on Acheson’a Island and Wa-shaw Creek, on Santee. The plaintiff claimed as heir at law of his father, and by descent from his grandfather, Charles Young, who died abont 1803. The title of Charles Young, the grandfather, was derived from Alexander Inglis, and to sustain it, office copies of the following deeds, under proof, deemed sufficient to entitle them to be read, were produced and read in evidence.
    1. A deed of conveyance, dated the 8th of November, 1798, from Alexander Inglis and William Marshall, Executors of Alexander Inglis, deceased, to George Wagner, for the lands described in the declaration. The deed recited certain proceedings in Chancery, by the creditors of Inglis, to subject the real estate to the payment of debts, on which a decree was pronounced, directing a sale of the lands by the executors, and that they should make titles to the purchaser; and that the heir at law, and the devisees, should join in and confirm the titles within six months after attaining the age of twenty-one years, or show cause to the contrary. The proceedings in Chancery were not in evidence, and there was no deed of confirmation by the heir or devisee.
    *2. A deed of conveyance from George Wagner to Charles Young, dated 20th April, 1799, for the same lands.
    It was proved by Mrs. Mary Brown, that Inglis owned a plantation on South Santee, called Washaw, but whether it embraced any land on Acheson’s Island, she did not know. She understood that Mr. Wagner bought part of the plantation and Mrs. Horry a part. Mr. Inglis acquired his lands on Santee by marriage, lie took possession of his wife’s lands at the death of her father, in 1775, and had possession of them and cultivated them until his death, in 1791. She did not know that the land held by Inglis, was the same that is now in dispute.
    The plaintiff relied an this proof of possession by Inglis, as sufficient to constitute title in him ; or at least, as sufficient to enable him to recover in this action against the defendant, who showed no title. On a motion for a nonsuit, the Circuit Court was of a different opinion ; without regard to the defect in the plaintiff’s title, in not producing the proceedings in chancery, under which the sale was made by the executors of Inglis, and for want of the deed of confirmation by the heir and devisees.
    Yonsuit ordered ; which it was now moved to set aside.
    Appeal determined at Charleston, February 1840.
   Curia, per

Earle, J.

What has been said in Alston vs. McDowall, renders it unnecessary to say much here. The plaintiff, it is admitted, made out no title. And the defendant is not proved to have been a dis-seizor. The question made by the counsel in argument, did not arise. The endorsement which the plaintiff is required to make on his writ and declaration, gives character to this action, which is to try titles. I have not heard it doubted, that in such case, the plaintiff, where there ha.s been no tortious eviction, could only recover on proof of good title. It would be of very little use to go back to the feudal system for the origin of land titles. — Whether or not the land in this State should, in point of law, all be presumed to have been granted, is a question of policy, which we need not consider, much less decide. There can be no acquisition of title against the State, except by grant, or a possession which will authorize the presumption of a grant. Less than twenty years will not answer that purpose. And a plaintiff can only make out a perfect title, by producing a grant, or by proving such a possession in himself, or some one from whom he derives title. A possession of, sixteen years only, supposing it clearly proved to have been of the lands in dispute, which terminated fifty years ago, cannot stand in the place of title. It cannot be allowed to prevail against the actual possession of the defendant, who did not enter upon the plaintiff, and which, for ought that appeal's, may be as rightful as that which the plaintiff formerly held. Until the true title appears, we must regard the ^actual possession, when not forcibly obtained, as the best evidence of it, and entitled to protection.

Petigru and Hunt, for the plaintiff. Mayziclc and Memminger, contra.

Motion dismissed.

Gantt, Richardson and Butler, JJ., concurred.

O’Neall, J.

Where the plaintiff’s possession, actual or constructive, is entered upon, I think that such possession is evidence of title to put the defendant to prove his title, In this caso, I understand the plaintiff or his ancestor never had possession, actual or constructive. I, therefore, am satisfied with the nonsuit. 
      
       Sup., 444. An,
      
     
      
       3 Strob., 480. An.
      
     