Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924

Barnett v. Hudson

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 4, 1924 · Cothran, Messrs, Watts, Eraser, Marion, Chiee, Gary

125 S.E. 573; 130 S.C. 300; 1924 S.C. LEXIS 92 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Carey Carey, W.E. Findley and Dean, Cothran Wyche , for appellants, cite: Vested remainder in fee simple: 23 S.C. 512 ; 10 S.C. 386 ; 21 S.C. 529 ; 20 S.C. 318 ; 16 S.C. 290 ; 16 S.C. 227 ; 12 S.C. 172 . Surplusage after estate devised: 109 S.C. 416 ; 102 S.C. 7 ; 119 S.C. 31 . "Heirs": Rich. Eq. Re. Vol. 6. Words of limitation: Code 1922, Sec. 5343; 35 S.C. 54 ; 105 S.C. 38 ; 105 S.C. 176 ; 109 S.C. 228 ; 69 S.C. 503 . Conditions subsequent: 15 S.C. 442 . Messrs. D.B. Stover and T.H. Munro , for respondent, cite: "Heirs" construed to mean "children": 3 Strob. Eq., 66; 4 S.C. 16 ; 25 S.C. 292 ; 67 S.C. 134 . Vested remainder: 1 Strob. Eq., 43; 78 S.C. 115 ; 68 S.C. 275 ; 40 Cyc., 1648, 1671; 3 DeS. Eq., 273. Executory devise: 40 Cyc., 1647; 85 S.C. 54 ; 46 S.C. 262 ; Bail. Eq., 40; 38 S.C. 440 ; 112 U.S. 526 ; 42 S.C. 436 . Limitations that are void as contingent remainders are good by way of Executory devise: 4 Strob. Eq., 37; 111 S.W. 1119; 59 Atl., 413; 45 Mass. 190 ; 44 S.E., 116.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The Court is entirely satisfied with the reasoning and conclusion of the Circuit Judge. In addition to the authorities cited by him, the case of Wilson v. Poston (S. C.), 123 S. E., 849, appears to be conclusive of the question.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Eraser and Marion concur. Mr. Chiee Justice Gary did not participate.

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