Cureton v. Little

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Cureton v. Little

111 S.E. 803, 119 S.C. 31, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 48

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket10861

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 803 (Cureton v. Little) 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

Cureton v. Little, 111 S.E. 803, 119 S.C. 31, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 48 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

April 11, 1922. The opinion of the Court was delivered by For the reasons assigned by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur upon the ground that items 8, 9, and 10 of the will were not intended to apply to the estates devised in 2, 3, and 4. I think that the doctrine of Adams v. Verner, 102 S.C. 7; 86 S.E., 211, should be limited to devises which carry, directly, complete estates, as "to A. and his heirs," or "heirs of his body," and should *Page 39 not be applied to cases of this character, "to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of his body," where a fee conditional can only be established by invoking the rule in Shelley's case. In such cases the inquiry should be wide open, whether the technical words were intended to be so used, or in the sense of children. Report Master's report and circuit decree.

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

April 11, 1922. The opinion of the Court was delivered by For the reasons assigned by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur upon the ground that items 8, 9, and 10 of the will were not intended to apply to the estates devised in 2, 3, and 4. I think that the doctrine of Adams v. Verner, 102 S.C. 7; 86 S.E., 211, should be limited to devises which carry, directly, complete estates, as "to A. and his heirs," or "heirs of his body," and should *Page 39 not be applied to cases of this character, "to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of his body," where a fee conditional can only be established by invoking the rule in Shelley's case. In such cases the inquiry should be wide open, whether the technical words were intended to be so used, or in the sense of children. Report Master's report and circuit decree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 803, 119 S.C. 31, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cureton-v-little-sc-1922.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack