Case Name: Witsell vs. Mitchell
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1832-03
Citations: 3 Rich. 289
Docket Number: 
Parties: Witsell vs. Mitchell.
Judges: Johnson, J, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 37
Pages: 289–290

Head Matter:
Witsell vs. Mitchell.
Testator devised land to his son A. and “ if age, or should die without leaving lawful issue of over. Held, that or must be construed and, and that- on A’s attaining twenty-one years of age, he acquired an absolute estate, and not merely a fee conditional in the land.
Before Gantt, J. at Charleston, ¡Spring Term, 1831.
Trespass to try titles to one moiety of a tract of land. William Lewis, by his will dated 12th December, 1777, devised, inter alia, as follows : “ It is my will that my tract or tracts of land, be equally divided between my sons William and Henry Lewisand in another part as follows : “ But it is also my will, that if either of my children should die under age, or should die without leaving lawful issue of their body, that in such case, all their parts or shares of my estate shall return, and be equally divided between the then survivors of my children.”
Testator left four children, William, Henry, Mary and Hannah. Henry died during infancy. William attained the age of twenty-one years, and being-seized of a moiety of testator’s land under the will, conveyed the same, 9th March, 1797, to John Fowler Percy, under whom the defendant holds. William survived both his sisters ; he never married, and died in 1813, without issue. This action was brought by the children of Mary and Hannah. The plaintiffs claimed that William Lewis took under the will an estate in fee conditional, and that on his death, the land descended to the plaintiffs, as heirs of the devisor.
The facts of the case were found by a special verdict, and his Honor, the presiding Judge, ordered the postea to the defendant.
The plaintiffs appealed, and now moved this court to reverse the judgment of the presiding Judge.
Petigru, for the motion.
-- — •, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
O'Neall, J.
The case of Scanlan vs. Porter, 1 Bail. 427, is decisive of this case. In that case, as well as this, the disjunctive conjunction " or," was used in the clause of the will. The same reasons exist in this case, as in that; why it should be construed " and." Giving to the clause of the will, in this case, that construction, ends the right of the plaintiffs to recover.
The motion to reverse the decision of the Judge below, on the special verdict, is therefore dismissed.
Johnson, J, concurred.