Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1916

Dendy v. Dendy

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided June 30, 1916 · Chiuu, Gary, Watts

89 S.E. 317; 104 S.C. 399; 1916 S.C. LEXIS 134 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Dial Todd , for appellant, submit: The will of 1892 was conditional; and cite: As to conditions precedent as distinguished from conditions subsequent: 2 Words Phrases, 1400 to 1404; 63 S.C. 490 ; 6 Rich. Eq. 217; Rich. Eq. Cas. 321; Jarman Wills (5th ed.), 28, 29, 30; 8 Allen 192; Underhill Wills 12, 14; 40 Cyc. 1082; 1 DeS. Eq. 543. Messrs. Simpson, Cooper Babb , for respondent, cite: As to parol testimony showing acceptance of condition: 57 S.C. 559 ; 22 S.C. 454 ; 40 Cyc. 2118, note 8. Will of 1892 not a codicil: Schouler Wills, sec 436; 40 Cyc. 994; Dudley's Eq. 184. Revocation of prior will: Schouler Wills, sec. 466; 2 N. McC. 485; 40 Cyc. 1173, 1175. Effect of probate: 36 S.C. 433 ; 16 S.C. 46 ; 40 Cyc. 1356.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. - ChiUU Justice Gary.

This appeal raises the question whether there was error on the part of the probate Judge in ordering that the will in *403 question be admitted to probate, in due form of law. The facts are stated in the decree, rendered by the probate Judge. By consent of all the parties, the case was heard by the Circuit Judge, upon the exceptions without a jury. The exceptions were overruled, and the decree confirmed, whereupon there was an appeal to this Court.

In the case of In re Solomon’s Estate, 74 S. C. 189, 54 S. E. 207, it was held that the issue of will or no will is legal in its nature, and the facts are not reviewable by this Court, on an appeal from the Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Watts, being disqualified, did not participate in the consideration of this case.

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