Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Hunt, Hunt Hunter, for appellant, cite: Intention must be ascertained, and effect given to such intention if not in violation of any settled rule of law: 102 S.C. 242; 107 S.E., 914. Whole instrument must be construed and effect given to all of it if possible: 42 S.C. 342; 102 S.C. 242. Apparent repugnancies must be reconciled if possible: 14 Rich. Eq. 271. Words in granting clause repugnant to those in habendum must be eliminated: 107 S.E., 916. To carry out intention "heirs at law" in habendum should read "children": 3 Rich. Eq. 156; McMull. Eq. 236; 36 S.C. 44. Mr. E.J. Green, for respondent, cites: Habendum cannot cut down estate granted: 17 S.C. 532; 52 S.C. 554; 67 S.C. 130; 67 S.C. 118; 83 S.C. 265; 91 S.C. 59; 102 S.C. 227; 106 S.C. 304. Estate granted appears in habendum: 1 Rich. L. 404; 27 S.C. 479; 109 S.C. 58; 76 S.C. 36; 95 S.C. 32; 48 S.C. 316; 11 S.C. 71. First taker takes the fee: Tid. Real Prop. 433; 84 S.W. 857; 44 S.W. 399; 27 N.C. 111. Extent to which intention can control: 106 S.C. 346.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. Hunt, Hunt Hunter, for appellant, cite: Intention must be ascertained, and effect given to such intention if not in violation of any settled rule of law: 102 S.C. 242; 107 S.E., 914. Whole instrument must be construed and effect given to all of it if possible: 42 S.C. 342; 102 S.C. 242. Apparent repugnancies must be reconciled if possible: 14 Rich. Eq. 271. Words in granting clause repugnant to those in habendum must be eliminated: 107 S.E., 916. To carry out intention "heirs at law" in habendum should read "children": 3 Rich. Eq. 156; McMull. Eq. 236; 36 S.C. 44. Mr. E.J. Green, for respondent, cites: Habendum cannot cut down estate granted: 17 S.C. 532; 52 S.C. 554; 67 S.C. 130; 67 S.C. 118; 83 S.C. 265; 91 S.C. 59; 102 S.C. 227; 106 S.C. 304. Estate granted appears in habendum: 1 Rich. L. 404; 27 S.C. 479; 109 S.C. 58; 76 S.C. 36; 95 S.C. 32; 48 S.C. 316; 11 S.C. 71. First taker takes the fee: Tid. Real Prop. 433; 84 S.W. 857; 44 S.W. 399; 27 N.C. 111. Extent to which intention can control: 106 S.C. 346.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

SHEALY v. SHEALY ET AL.

July 5, 1922. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN.

Action for construction of a deed. The deed with the circuit decree will be reported.

So much of the decree as adjudges that, by the granting clause, a fee-simple estate is conveyed to Thompson L. Shealy, which cannot be cut down by subsequent clauses of the deed, is affirmed. Glenn v. Jamison: 48 S.C. 316; 26 S.E., 677. Adams v. Verner: 102 S.C. 7; 86 S.E., 211. The application of the rule in Shelley's case to the habendum clause need not be considered.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

SHEALY v. SHEALY
(Jul 5, 1922)