Court Opinion

ID: 9826390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:52:41.226075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:02.643462
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran:
I concur upon the ground that items 8, 9, and 10 of the will were not intended to apply to the estates devised in 2, 3, and 4. I think that the doctrine of Adams v. Verner, 102 S. C., 7; 86 S. E., 211, should be limited tó devises which carry, directly, complete estates, as “to A. and his heirs,” or “heirs of his body,” and should *39not be applied to cases of this character, ‘‘to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of his body,” where a fee conditional can only be established by invoking the rule in Shelley’s case. In such cases the inquiry should be wide open, whether the technical words were intended to be so used, or in the sense of children. Report Master’s report and circuit decree.