Rish v. Wingard

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Rish v. Wingard

89 S.E. 400, 105 S.C. 38, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 179

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1916

Docket9426

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 400 (Rish v. Wingard) 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

Rish v. Wingard, 89 S.E. 400, 105 S.C. 38, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 179 (S.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court, reciting the foregoing statement of facts, was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Fraser.

There are two questions: (1) The meaning of the word “heirs.” (2) The effect of marriage.

1 1. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” cannot have its technical meaning. If either should die without heirs, then to her sisters. The sisters are heirs in default of issue. Neither could die without heirs, if she left a sister. That would make a contradiction in terms. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” is used as synonymous with the word “issue.” See DuBose v. Flemming, 93 S. C. 182, 76 S. E. 277. There was no disposition of the estate on the death of the survivor of the four without issue; therefore, under section 3'571, Code of 1912, the survivor of the four took a fee simple.

2 2. Marriage could only effect a separation of possession, because there might be marriage without issue, and in the event of the death of one of the four without issue her share went to the survivor or survivors. There is nothing in the will to indicate a different intention.

The judgment is reversed.

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

The opinion of the Court, reciting the foregoing statement of facts, was delivered by

Mr. Justice; Fraser.

There are two questions: (1) The meaning of the word “heirs.” (2) The effect of marriage.

1 1. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” cannot have its technical meaning. If either should die without heirs, then to her sisters. The sisters are heirs in default of issue. Neither could die without heirs, if she left a sister. That would make a contradiction in terms. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” is used as synonymous with the word “issue.” See DuBose v. Flemming, 93 S. C. 182, 76 S. E. 277. There was no disposition of the estate on the death of the survivor of the four without issue; therefore, under section 3'571, Code of 1912, the survivor of the four took a fee simple.

2 2. Marriage could only effect a separation of possession, because there might be marriage without issue, and in the event of the death of one of the four without issue her share went to the survivor or survivors. There is nothing in the will to indicate a different intention.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 400, 105 S.C. 38, 1916 S.C. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rish-v-wingard-sc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack