Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925

Groce v. Groce

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 6, 1925 · Watts, Chiee, Gary, Messrs, Fraser, Marion, Jas, Johnson, Cothran

127 S.E. 719; 131 S.C. 416; 1925 S.C. LEXIS 152 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Bonham, Price Poag, W.M. Walters and T. H. Munro , for appellant, cite: Admission of indebtedness with promise to make a will supported assumps it: 1 McM., 486. Similar agreement held enforceable: 48 S.C. 86 . Existence of contract inferred from statements of deceased: 53 S.C. 383 . Direct evidence aided by relations of the parties and their business habits may establish a contract: 91 S.C. 290 . Messrs. Bomar, Osborne Brown and Haynsworth Haynsworth , for respondents, cite: Agreement to make a will must be definite and certain established by clear, convincing evidence: 73 S.C. 155 ; 100 S.C. 496 ; 90 S.E., 177 . Binding nature of agreement must be understood: 100 S.C. 341 ; 84 S.E., 878 . Contract required to be deliberately entered into: 22 S.C. 486 . Attitude of Courts to similar contracts: 280 Fed., 663 671. Effect of declaration of testamentary intention: 76 N.J. Eq., 386 ; 77 Atl., 354 . Where parties live together for mutual convenience: 146 Ky., 316 ; 117 Ky., 547; 197 S.W. 950. Failure to object to breach of contract: 59 S.C. 528 at 535. Breach of contract by beneficiary: 94 S.C. 267 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

The decree of Judge Townsend is satisfactory to this Court under the authorities quoted by him (Dicks v. Cassels, 100 S. C., 341; 84 S. E., 878. Kerr v. Kennedy, 105 S. C., 496, 500, 505; 90 S. E., 177. Joyner v. Hoffman, 59 S. C., 535; 38 S. E., 174), and also Cromwell v. Simons (C. C. A.), 280 F., 663; 671. Van Horn v. Demarest, 76 N. J. Eq., 386; 77 A., 354. Bolling v. Bolling’s Adm’r, 146 Ky., 316; 142 S. W., 387, Ann. Cas., 1913C, 306. Armstrong’s Adm’r v. Shannon, 177 Ky., 547; 197 S. W., 950, and it is incumbent that the appellant should satisfy this Court of the correctness of his contention by the preponderance of the evidence, which he has failed to do.

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

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Fraser and Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice Jas. W. Johnson concur. Mr. Justice Cothran did not participate.

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