Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922

Shealy v. Shealy

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided July 5, 1922 · Cothran

113 S.E. 131; 120 S.C. 276; 1922 S.C. LEXIS 130 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

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 ;.

Opinion of the Court

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 E. 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.

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