Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912

Spigener v. Spigener

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 28, 1912 · Woods, Fraser

74 S.E. 372; 91 S.C. 167; 1912 S.C. LEXIS 210 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. R. Beverley Sloan , for appellants, cites: Words used in codicil must be construed in their ordinary sense: 30 Ency. 670; 2 Strob. Eq. 379; 2 Hill Eq. 50, 605; 5 Rich. Eq. 83. Codicil must control: 6 Ency. 175, 186; 71 S.C. 199 ; 1 N. McC. 322; 1 Hill, Ch. 360; 1 Brev. 297. In construction of wills every word should have its effect: 30 Ency. 691; 1 Brev. 419, 328; 7 Rich. Eq. 425; 5 Rich. Eq. 89. Mr. John J. McMahan , contra, cites: Will and codicil should be construed together: 20 S.C. 587 ; 71 S.C. 188 . The provisions will be harmonized if possible: 20 S.C. 587 ; 71 S.C. 188 ; 30 Ency. 664-686; 3 Jar. 705. Words may be substituted: Chev. Eq. 90; 1 Spear. 258; 7 Rich. Eq. 422; 23 S.C. 453 .

Opinion of the Court

-The opinion of the Court-was- delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed for the reasons therein stated.

Concurring Opinion

*175 Mr. Justice Fraser,

-concurring. I concur in the'result. It seems to me that “revokes” means revokes just as “item 3” means- item 2. .That it is1 clear that the .codicil affects item 2 alome and is1 a substitute for it, and in order to- make the substitution complete, revokes it. Now -read the will and codicil as one and if there be a conflict between; item 2 and item 3, them, under the well known rule, item 3 governs.

For these reasons I. concur in the result;

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.