SHEALY v. SHEALY

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.