Case Name: AVINGER ET AL. v. AVINGER ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-04-11
Citations: 116 S.C. 125
Docket Number: 10600
Parties: AVINGER ET AL. v. AVINGER ET AL.
Judges: Justices Watts, Eraser and Cothran concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 125–134

Head Matter:
10600.
AVINGER ET AL. v. AVINGER ET AL.
(107 S. E. 26)
1. Wills — Remainder to Heirs as Class Vests at Testator's Death-— A devise to heirs as a class after a life estate is vested, and the heirs take at the death of testator unless a different time is fixed.
2. Wills — Restrictions as to Time of Taking in one Provision Held not to Apply to Another. — In a devise of a life estate with remainder to the heirs of a testator, with a subsequent provision that if the life tenant remarried the land was to be equally divided among the testator’s heirs then living, the alternative provision merely provided for conditional remainders, and the provision therein restricting the time of determining the class, is not to be applied to the original remainder after the death of the life tenant.
Before Peurifoy, J., Orangeburg.
Reversed.
Action by D. W. Avinger et al. against Charles Avinger et al. for partition of real estate. From Judgment for defendants, Ethel V. Sheider et al., the plaintiffs and 'the defendants, Charles Avinger et al., appeal.
Messrs. Wolfe & Berry and J. L. Dukes, for appellants,
cite: The will created a vested remainder; the contingency never having become effective: 102 S. C. 240.
Messrs. Adam H. Moss and J. S. Wolfe, for respondents. Mr. Moss
cites: Remainder did not become vested at testator’s death as it was impossible to determine those of the heirs who ivould take at the falling in of the life estate: 10 S. C. 387; 113 S. C. 378; 102 S. E: 643'; 101 S. E. 738 (N. C.)
April 11, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an action for partition of certain lands, and involves the construction of a will. About the year 1889. Daniel Avinger departed this life, leaving of force his last will and testament, which (omitting the formal parts thereof), is as follows:
"The residue of my estate, real and personal, I give, bequeath and dispose of as follows, to-wit: To my beloved wife, the land and appurtenances situated thereon, during the term of her natural life, and after her death to be divided equally among my heirs; or, in case my wife ceases to be a widow and marries again, then at her marriage, to be equally divided among my heirs then living, share and share alike."
The testator was married four times, and left a widow, Laura V. Avinger, who died in January, 1919. She, however, remained unmarried after the death of the testator. The testator's first, second' and fourth wives had children, but the third wife did not.
His Honor, the Circuit Judge, ruled that the remainders created by the will were contingent; that they did not become vested until the death of the widow; and, that the heirs of the testator living at the time of her death were entitled to the lands. , The exceptions assign error in these rulings. ' '
The well-recógnized rule is that when there is a devise to "heirs" as a class, they take at the death of the testator, unless a different time is fixed by the word "surviving," or some other equivalent expression. McFadden v. McPadden, 107 S. C. 101, 91 S. E. 986.
The only other provision in the will upon which his Honor, the Circuit Judge, relied was that, in case his wife ceased to be a widow and 'married again, then, at her marriage, the land was to be equally divided among his heirs then living, share and share alike. The remainders in this provision were alternative, or substitutional, and therefore contingent. In order for these remainders to become effective it was essential for the widow to marry again, which contingency did not happen. As there is no other provision of the will preventing the application of the well-recognized rule already mentioned, it necessarily follows that the heirs of the testator, living at the time ,of his death, took vested remainders, which were not thereafter divested. Walker v Alverson, 87 S. C. 55, 68 S. E. 966, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 115.
Reversed.
Justices Watts, Eraser and Cothran concur.