Shealy v. Shealy

113 S.E. 131, 120 S.C. 276, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 130
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided July 5, 1922·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

Action for construction of a deed. The deed with the circuit decree will be reported.

So much of the decree as adjudges that, by the granting clause, a fee-simple estate is conveyed to Thompson E. Shealy, which cannot be cut down by subsequent clauses of the deed, is affirmed. Glenn v. Jamison: 48 S. C., 316; 26 S. E., 677. Adams v. Verner: 102 S. C., 7; 86 S. E., 211. The application of the rule in Shelley’s case to the habendum clause need not be considered.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

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

Shealy v. Shealy, 113 S.E. 131, 120 S.C. 276, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 130 (S.C. 1922).

113 S.E. 131 (Shealy v. Shealy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stylecraft, Inc. v. Thomas
159 S.E.2d 46 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1968)
Southern Railway Co. v. Smoak
133 S.E.2d 806 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1963)
Glasgow v. Glasgow
70 S.E.2d 432 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1952)
Cresswell v. Bank of Greenwood
41 S.E.2d 393 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1947)
United States v. 31,600 Acres of Land
47 F. Supp. 21 (E.D. South Carolina, 1942)
Bethea v. Young
161 S.E. 514 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1931)