## Facts

- E.C. Winchester held fee simple title to a 310-acre tract in Lancaster County, South Carolina, and conveyed it to R.H. Burns in 1931.
- Taxes later went unpaid, and the sheriff sold the tract at a tax sale to John S. Chonis; the sheriff later deeded the property to Chonis after no redemption occurred.
- In 1943, Chonis conveyed the tract to Carl W. Mullis by recorded deed containing a definite legal description; the parties stipulated the underlying tax deed was invalid.
- Mullis claimed that from his 1943 purchase he maintained actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession under color of title.
- The land was primarily unimproved timberland; Mullis used it for forestry, including cutting and selling timber and pulpwood as the land’s practical use.
- Neighbors and adjacent landowners believed Mullis was the owner based on his visible acts of ownership; no evidence showed defendants exercised competing dominion during the limitations period.
- Mullis sued in 1957 to quiet title and remove cloud; the only tried issue was whether he had obtained title by adverse possession under color of title.

## Issues

1. Whether Mullis’s deed constituted color of title despite an invalid underlying tax deed.
2. Whether Mullis’s primarily timber-related activities on unimproved woodland satisfied the “continuous,” “open,” and “notorious” elements of adverse possession for the statutory period.
3. Whether the evidence permitted any reasonable inference that Mullis failed to prove adverse possession, such that judgment for him was improper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed judgment for Mullis.
- The court held Mullis acquired title to the entire 310-acre tract by adverse possession under color of title.
- The court accepted that the trial judge properly concluded the evidence allowed only the inference that Mullis’s possession was hostile, open, notorious, visible, and exclusive for the required period.

## Legal Principles

- A deed may constitute color of title even if the grantor lacks valid title, so long as the instrument provides a definite description identifying the land.
- When a claimant enters under color of title, possession is constructively extended to the whole tract described, subject to satisfying adverse possession elements for the statutory period.
- For wild, open, unimproved, and uncultivated land, “continuous” possession is measured by acts consistent with the character and best use of the property; residence, enclosure, or cultivation is not required.
- Periodic timber cutting and other forestry use can satisfy actual, open, notorious, hostile, continuous, and exclusive possession when such conduct mirrors how an ordinary owner would use timberland.

## Conclusion

The court upheld title by adverse possession where the claimant entered under a recorded deed with a definite description and used unimproved timberland in a manner consistent with ownership, concluding that such forestry-based acts can establish continuous, open, hostile, and exclusive possession for the statutory period even though the tax-sale title was defective.


Mullis v. Winchester, 237 S.C. 487, 118 S.E.2d 61 (S.C. 1961)