ANTLEY et al. v. ANTLEY et al

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

11762

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Adam H. Moss and P.F. Haigler and Nimocks Nimocks, for appellants, cite: No granting clause in deed: 39 S.C. 271; Rule in Shelley's Case; 36 S.C. 354, 356; 67 S.C. 130. Rule not applicable: 1 Strob. Eq., 346; 3 Rich. Eq., 550; 116 S.C. 229; 16 S.C. 290; 16 S.C. 303; 83 S.C. 265. Intention of grantor given effect: 102 S.C. 227. Messrs. Wolfe Berry and J. LeRoy Dukes, for respondents, cite: Intention a term of art: 106 S.C. 306. Words conveying fee simple: 102 S.C. 361. Words conveying fee conditional: 98 S.C. 460; 115 S.E., 605. Rights under fee conditional: 10 R.C.L., 654; 98 S.C. 461; 16 S.C.L. (Harp. L.), 92; 26 S.C. Eq. (5 Rich. Eq.), 441; 98 S.C. 461. "Bodily issue" and "children" distinguished: 115 S.E., 606; 83 S.C. 265; 3 Rich. Eq., 271; 67 S.C. 307; 16 S.C. 290; 10 S.C. 414. Limitation after fee void: 115 S.E., 606; 109 S.C. 58; 106 S.C. 304; 93 S.C. 266; 76 S.C. 36; 76 S.C. 484; 5 Rich Eq., 356; 46 S.C. 267. Condition burdening fee discharged: 116 S.C. 127. Cases distinguished: 116 S.C. 233; 24 S.C. 228.

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

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

11762

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Adam H. Moss and P.F. Haigler and Nimocks Nimocks, for appellants, cite: No granting clause in deed: 39 S.C. 271; Rule in Shelley's Case; 36 S.C. 354, 356; 67 S.C. 130. Rule not applicable: 1 Strob. Eq., 346; 3 Rich. Eq., 550; 116 S.C. 229; 16 S.C. 290; 16 S.C. 303; 83 S.C. 265. Intention of grantor given effect: 102 S.C. 227. Messrs. Wolfe Berry and J. LeRoy Dukes, for respondents, cite: Intention a term of art: 106 S.C. 306. Words conveying fee simple: 102 S.C. 361. Words conveying fee conditional: 98 S.C. 460; 115 S.E., 605. Rights under fee conditional: 10 R.C.L., 654; 98 S.C. 461; 16 S.C.L. (Harp. L.), 92; 26 S.C. Eq. (5 Rich. Eq.), 441; 98 S.C. 461. "Bodily issue" and "children" distinguished: 115 S.E., 606; 83 S.C. 265; 3 Rich. Eq., 271; 67 S.C. 307; 16 S.C. 290; 10 S.C. 414. Limitation after fee void: 115 S.E., 606; 109 S.C. 58; 106 S.C. 304; 93 S.C. 266; 76 S.C. 36; 76 S.C. 484; 5 Rich Eq., 356; 46 S.C. 267. Condition burdening fee discharged: 116 S.C. 127. Cases distinguished: 116 S.C. 233; 24 S.C. 228.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

ANTLEY ET AL. v. ANTLEY ET AL.

May 7, 1925. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

For the very satisfactory reasons assigned by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MESSRS. JUSTICES WATTS, FRASER and MARION and MR. ACTING ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JAS.W. JOHNSON concur.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN did not participate.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.