Berry v. Hughes

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Berry v. Hughes

138 S.E. 846, 140 S.C. 371, 1927 S.C. LEXIS 39

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 15, 1927

Docket12239

StatusPublished

This text of 138 S.E. 846 (Berry v. Hughes) 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

Berry v. Hughes, 138 S.E. 846, 140 S.C. 371, 1927 S.C. LEXIS 39 (S.C. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Coti-iran.

The result of the master’s report, confirmed by the presiding Judge, is approved, although all that is written therein is not. The deed is a conveyance of the fee-simple title to J. E. Berry, with a clumsy attempt to exempt the property from his debts and to create an estate in perpetuity to his children, grandchildren, and so forth, for a period of 200 years. Both attempts must fail; the first as inconsistent with a fee-simple title, and the other as offending the rule against perpetuities, or, as more correctly termed, the rule against remoteness of the vesting of future interests, which is limited to a life or lives in being and 21 years, plus the period of gestation thereafter. The deed and the master’s report will be reported.

Mr. Chiee Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices BlEase, Stabler and Carter concur.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Coti-iran.

The result of the master’s report, confirmed by the presiding Judge, is approved, although all that is written therein is not. The deed is a conveyance of the fee-simple title to J. E. Berry, with a clumsy attempt to exempt the property from his debts and to create an estate in perpetuity to his children, grandchildren, and so forth, for a period of 200 years. Both attempts must fail; the first as inconsistent with a fee-simple title, and the other as offending the rule against perpetuities, or, as more correctly termed, the rule against remoteness of the vesting of future interests, which is limited to a life or lives in being and 21 years, plus the period of gestation thereafter. The deed and the master’s report will be reported.

Mr. Chiee Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices BlEase, Stabler and Carter concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 846, 140 S.C. 371, 1927 S.C. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-hughes-sc-1927.