Bamberg Banking Co. v. Matthews

109 S.E. 550, 118 S.C. 83, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 183
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 4, 1921
Docket10749
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 S.E. 550 (Bamberg Banking Co. v. Matthews) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bamberg Banking Co. v. Matthews, 109 S.E. 550, 118 S.C. 83, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 183 (S.C. 1921).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Peurifoy. The action was for foreclosure of two mortgages. The defendants interposed a number of defenses. The exceptions are 11 in number. Exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are overruled. The appellants have failed to convince this Court that the concurring findings of master and Circuit Court are against the preponderance of the evidence.

The question to be determined, as to whether Addie Matthews owns the property in fee simple as found by the *87 Circuit Court, or whether, as appellants contend, she has an estate for life only, and that the infant defendants, the children of Addie, are remaindermen. The deed of Amzi August, made in October, 1882, is an absolute deed, and must govern; it was duty witnessed, signed, delivered, probated, and recorded. Dower was renounced thereon; it was a perfect deed. It reserves a life estate in grantor and wife, and creates a life estate in the children, remainder in fee in the grand-children. It is a contingent remainder; the fee only remained in the grantor until the contingency happened, to wit, the birth of a grand-child-or grand-children, in any view of the case. The deed of 1908 was void, under the case of Rutledge v. Fishburne, 66 S. C., 155; 44 S. E., 564; 97 Am. St. Rep., 757. Addie did not own the fee, but only an estate for life, and her children are the remaindermen; and at her death own the land in fee, so the exceptions raising these questions, 8 and 9, are sustained. All other exceptions are overruled.

Judgment modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bamberg Banking Co. v. Matthews
128 S.E. 718 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
109 S.E. 550, 118 S.C. 83, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bamberg-banking-co-v-matthews-sc-1921.