Case Name: Thomas Curry and Wife and others vs. John S. Sims and Matilda Jeter
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1858-05
Citations: 11 Rich. 489
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Curry and Wife and others vs. John S. Sims and Matilda Jeter.
Judges: Glover and MuNRO, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 489–492

Head Matter:
Thomas Curry and Wife and others vs. John S. Sims and Matilda Jeter.
Wills and Testaments — Limitation of Estates — Executory Devise.
Testator devised land “ to F. L., widow of 0. L., deceased, and if it should happen, that said F. L. should die without heirs, lawful begotten of her body, that then the said land shall descend to her siste.r J.’s children, in common.” — Held, that F. L. took a fee-simple estate in the land — and that the limitation to J.’s children was void for remoteness.
BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT UNION, FALL TERM, 1857.
George Linam, by bis will, dated in 1815, devised as follows: “I give to Frances Linam, widow of Charles Linam, deceased, the one-half of certain tracts .or parcels of land,” (describing them) “ and if it should happen that the said Frances Liman should die without heirs, lawful begotten of her body, that then the said land shall descend to her sister Judith’s children, in common.”
Frances Linam intermarried with Nathaniel Rochester, and after the death of testator, she and her husband conveyed the land to H. D. Yanlew, who conveyed to the defendants.
Frances Rochester died in 1846, leaving no children surviving her; and this action of trespass to try title was brought by the children of her sister Judith, who claimed the land under the executory limitations of George Linam’s will.
His Honor held that the limitation was good and the plaintiff had a verdict.
The defendants appealed.
Thomson, for appellants,
cited Buist vs. Dawes, 4 Rich. Eq. 421; Lyon & Norwood vs. Walker, 8 Rich. 807; 4 Kent, 10; Jones vs. Postell, Harp. 92 ; Addison vs. Addison, 9 Eicb. Eq. 58; Bail. Eq. 48 ; Scanlan ys. Porter, 1 Bail. 427 ; 4 McO. 439 ; 4 Kent, 541 note e.; Eicb. Eq. Gases, 419.
Qadberry, contra,
cited 4 Des. 330 ; 1 McO. Ob. 60; 2 Bro. O. E. 507; 5. Eicb. Eq. 525 ; 1 Strob. 132.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
WardlaV, J.
The Act of 1853, (12 Stat. 298,) is inapplicable to this case, for the testator here died before that Act was passed. In case of great doubt the expression of the legislative desire might incline the balance, but neither did the Legislature intend to give, nor could the Court constitutionally give a retro-active operation to the Act. The hope that such cases will be prevented by the Act from troubling the Court so frequently hereafter, as they have heretofore done, as well as the ample discussions given to the subject in cases to be found in our reports, render any enlarged observations upon this case unnecessary; — but they have not prevented its careful examination. Referring to Carr vs. Porter, 1 McC. Ch. 60; Mazyck vs. Vanderhorst, Bail. Eq. 48, and the many cases which may be found cited in those, we merely express now our unhesitating opinion, that Frances Linam took in the land in question a fee-simple, which the testator desired to make subject to an executory devise: — that the contingency upon which the executory devise was made to depend was the indefinite failure of the heirs of her body: that such contingency is too remote, as it may not have happened within the prescribed period of a life or lives in being and twenty-one years afterwards: and of course that the fee devised to her was absolute. ,
The only circumstances suggested to restrain the generality of the expression " die without heirs of her body," are first, that the limitation over was to persons in esse, (if indeed " her sister Judith's children" were in esse at the making of he will or even at Frances's death) — and, second, that the land was to " descend" to tbem in common. These circumstances were considered in Lyon vs. Norwood, 8 Rich. 307, and the first and most material of them in Carr vs. Porter: and in these cases and others to which they refer, were held insufficient.
. It appears to the Court that the plaintiffs have shown no title to the land in question; and the verdict is set aside, and a new trial ordered.
Motion granted.
Glover and MuNRO, JJ., concurred.