Bethea v. Young

161 S.E. 514, 163 S.C. 355, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 28
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedDecember 8, 1931
Docket13292
StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 514 (Bethea v. Young) 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
Bethea v. Young, 161 S.E. 514, 163 S.C. 355, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 28 (S.C. 1931).

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

The facts and issues involved in this case, necessary for an understanding of the case are fully stated in the report of the special referee, Hon. A. C. Todd, to whom the case was referred to take the testimony and report his findings of fact and conclusions of law, with leave to' report any special matters. On exceptions to the referee’s report, the case was heard by his Honor, Judge C. C. Eeatherstone, who confirmed the report of the referee, except as to minor matters which, by consent of the counsel, were modified.

We agree with the holding of the Circuit Court, except as to the interest Mrs. Young, wife of the testator, took in house and lot referred to as the brick house property, and, also, as to the application that should be made of the item of $2,100 paid to Mrs. Youngby the executor. In our opinion, under the codicil to the will in question, Mrs. Young took only a life estate in the brick house property. It is, further, our opinion that the said item of $2,100 should be charged as an advancement on the interest of Mrs. Young in said estate.

It is, therefore, the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be modified in accordance with the views herein expressed and affirmed in every other respect.

*363 Mr. Chief Justice BeEase and Messrs. Justices StabeEr and Bonham concur.

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

Related

Hicks v. Connor, Administrator
276 S.W. 844 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
Stamper v. . Stamper
28 S.E. 20 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Jennings v. Talbert
58 S.E. 420 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1907)
Dent v. Dent
102 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1920)
Monk v. Geddes
156 S.E. 175 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1930)
Shealy v. Shealy
113 S.E. 131 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Burriss v. Burriss
89 S.E. 405 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1916)
Adams v. Verner
86 S.E. 211 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1915)
Lawrence v. Burnett
96 S.E. 144 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1918)
Thomson v. Ehrlich
146 S.E. 149 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928)
Cureton v. Little
111 S.E. 803 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Cayce Land Co. v. Guignard
117 S.E. 644 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Smith v. Smith
76 S.E. 468 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1912)
Strother v. Folk
115 S.E. 605 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Temple Baptist Church v. Georgia Terminal Co.
58 S.E. 157 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Kimbrough v. Smith
58 S.E. 23 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Howze v. Barber
7 S.E. 817 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1888)
Glenn v. Jamison
26 S.E. 677 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1897)
Trustees Presbyterian Church v. Mize
205 S.W. 674 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1918)
Behrens v. Baumann
66 S.E. 5 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 S.E. 514, 163 S.C. 355, 1931 S.C. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bethea-v-young-sc-1931.