Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

93 S.C. 213

76 S.E 468

Smith v. Smith

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 26, 1912

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1912-11-26

<p>Before SeasE, J., Colleton,</p> <p>Action by Perry G. Smith, administrator of Ann F. Murrell, against Owen H. Smith et al. Defendants appeal.</p> <p>cite: Intention of testator must govern in construction: 4 Kent. 535, 537; 6 Pet. 80; 36 la. 273; 30 Ency. 661, 663-4, 675, 685-6; 1 N. & McC. 69; 2 Bay 255; 2 Mill 346; Harp. Eq. 272; 9 Rich. Eq. 19; 1 Strob. 96; 1 D. E. S. 241; 2 D. E. S. 451; Riley Eq. 167; 4 McC. 151; 1 Hill Eq. 360; McM. Eq. 201; 12 Rich. Eq. 263; 26 S. C. 179; 26 S. C. 450; 27 S. C. 295; 29 S. C. 456; 30 S. C. 184; 36 S. C. 38; 26 S. C. 181. Devisee only took a life estate: 45 S. C. 590; 26 S. C. 454; 27 S. C. 297; 42 S. C. 342; 4 McC. Eq. 151; 29 S. C. 470; 42 S. C. 345; 4 McC. Eq. 151; 8 E. Ed. 322; 30 Ency. 687; 10 S. C. 428 ; Deed Eq. 162; 77 S. C. 454. Residuary clause: 56 N. C. 305; 82 S. C. 214. “Real” in second paragraph should not be made to read “personal:” 2 Jar. 80; 30 Ency. 691.</p> <p>cite: “Real” in second paragraph should read “personal:” 4 McC. 151; 1 D. E. S. 235; 74 S. C. 170. Construction of will as thus changed: 70 S. C. 62; 1 D. E. S. 243; 1 Hill’s Ch. 95; 10 S. C. 428; 24 Ency. 701; Deed Eq. 162; 29 S. C. 470; 30 Ency. 687; 77 S. C. 458; 8 E. R. A. 697; 3 Sup. Ct. R. 580; 2 Hill Ch. 490; 5 S. C. 459; 1 Jar. 339.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1912-11-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1955

1 district · 6 state decisions

4019121920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Eraser,

¶1 dissenting. It seems to me that the daughter took only a life estate and the grandchildren took as purchasers. They took, not as children of the daughter, but as grandchildren of the testator. I do not think the act of 1906 applies.

The Chief Justice absent.
/93/sc/213 · .json · Public domain