Antley v. Antley, (No. 11762.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtGARY
Citation128 S.E. 31
PartiesANTLEY et al. v. ANTLEY et al.
Decision Date07 May 1925
Docket Number(No. 11762.)

128 S.E. 31

ANTLEY et al.
v.
ANTLEY et al.

(No. 11762.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 7, 1925.


[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Intention.]

[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Child— Children.]

[128 S.E. 32]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; Thos. S. Sease, Judge.

Action by Alice Mack Antley and others against Eloise Antley, the First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank, and others. From decree for plaintiffs, defendants, except second named, appeal. Affirmed.

The decree of the circuit judge was as follows:

This case comes on to be heard before me upon an agreed statement of facts, prepared and agreed to before a special master.

The purpose of the action is to construe a deed of conveyance hereinbefore made. The granting clause is in usual form, but not containing any terms of limitation. The habendum clause, which is to be considered, reads as follows: "To have and to hold all and singular the said premises before mentioned from and after the death of myself, the said John A. Mack and Susan Mack, my wife, into the said Alice A. Mack, for and during the term of her natural life, and after her death to the bodily issue of the said Alice A. Mack, who shall take per stirpes, and to the heirs and assigns of such bodily issue forever, provided, however, should said Alice A. Mack die leaving no bodily issue her surviving at the time of her death, then to such other of my children and the child or children of a deceased child or children as may be living at the time of the death of the said Alice A. Mack, the child or children of a deceased child to take the parent's share, and to their heirs and assigns forever."

The grantor, John A. Mack, was the father, and Susan A. Mack, the mother, of the grantee, Alice A. Mack, who was unmarried at the date of the deed. Since the date of the deed the grantee, Alice A. Mack, has intermarried with one William Antley, and is designated in the case as Alice Mack Antley, a plaintiff.

The deed in terms reserves a life estate to the grantor, John A. Mack and his wife, Susan Mack, jointly, and to the survivor of them. The grantor, John A. Mack, and his wife, Susan, are long since dead, and hence their life estates have ended.

The defendants, other than the First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank, are the children of the grantee, Alice Mack Antley.

The plaintiff Alice Mack Antley has conveyed by her deed in fee simple the premises in question, which consists of a plantation of 184 acres, situate in Orangeburg county, to her coplaintiffs Carl S. Gibson and H. Arthur Gibson, Jr., who in turn have mortgaged the lands to the defendant the First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank, which explains its connection with the case.

The question now presented for decision, is whether the deed from John A. Mack to Alice Mack Antley conveyed to her a fee conditional estate, or an estate for life only with remainder, either vested or contingent, over to her children in fee simple.

The plaintiffs contend that the deed conveyed a fee conditional to Alice Mack Antley, who, having had issue born unto her since the execution and delivery of the deed, may now convey an estate in fee simple to her coplaintiffs.

The defendants contend that the deed conveyed but a life estate to Alice Mack Antley with remainder, either vested or contingent, over to her children, who now take in fee simple.

This makes the issue now to be determined by this court, and necessitates the application of the well-settled rules of construction to the ascertained facts.

One of the first canons of construction is that the intention of the grantor must be ascertained and effectuated if no settled rule of law be contravened. But intention is a term of art, signifying the meaning of the writing. Sandford v. Sandford, 106 S. C. 306, 91 S. E. 294. Intention does not mean the purpose of the grantor apart from the writing. As has been said, the intention of the grantor must be found within the "four corners" of the deed.

A deed to one and his heirs grants a fee-simple estate. Boyce v. Mosely, 102 S. C. 361, 86 S. E. 771. A deed to one and his bodily heirs conveys a fee conditional estate to the grantee. Crawford v. Masters, 98 S. C. 460, 461, 82 S. E. 793. So it is seen that the insertion of the word "bodily" before the word "heirs" in a deed changes the estate granted from a fee simple into a fee conditional.

In the case of a fee-simple deed the grantee may use, convey, or devise at pleasure, with or without condition or limitation. On the other hand, the grantee of a fee conditional estate takes with the following rights and subject...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank Of D.C. v. Ford, No. 14100.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • June 28, 1935
    ...v. Lumber Company, 79 S. C. 166, 60 S. E. 445; Smith v. Clinkscales, 102 S. C. 227, 85 S. E. 1064; Antley v. Antley, 132 S. C. 306, 128 S. E. 31. Subordinate to the foregoing fundamental rules of construction, and as guides to the court in ascertaining and giving effect to the intention of ......
  • Glasgow v. Glasgow, No. 16617
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 8, 1952
    ...17 S.C. 532; Glenn v. Jamison, 48 S.C. 316, 26 S.E. 677; Shealy v. Shealy, 120 S.C. 276, 113 S.E. 131; Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S.E. 31; Groce v. Southern Ry. Co., 164 S.C. 427, 162 S.E. 425; and Keels v. Crosswell, 180 S.C. 63, 185 S.E. 39. Wilson v. Poston, 129 S.C. 345, 123 S.......
  • Lemmon v. Wilson, No. 15588.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 24, 1944
    ...v. [Atlantic] Lumber Co., 79 S.C. 166, 60 S.E. 445; Smith v. Clinkscales, 102 S.C. 227, 85 S.E. 1064; Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S. E. 31. * * * "In Duckett v. Butler, 67 S.C. 130, 45 S.E. 137, 138, the court said: 'When not in violation of some rule of law, the intention of the ma......
  • United States v. 15,883.55 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., Civil Action No. 203.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • April 14, 1944
    ...the intention of the grantor must be ascertained and effectuated if no settled rule of law is violated. Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S.E. 31. Intention is a term of art, and signifies the meaning of the writing. Sandford v. Sandford, 106 S.C. 304, 91 S.E. 294. It is always open to in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank Of D.C. v. Ford, No. 14100.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1935
    ...v. Lumber Company, 79 S. C. 166, 60 S. E. 445; Smith v. Clinkscales, 102 S. C. 227, 85 S. E. 1064; Antley v. Antley, 132 S. C. 306, 128 S. E. 31. Subordinate to the foregoing fundamental rules of construction, and as guides to the court in ascertaining and giving effect to the intention of ......
  • Glasgow v. Glasgow, No. 16617
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 8, 1952
    ...17 S.C. 532; Glenn v. Jamison, 48 S.C. 316, 26 S.E. 677; Shealy v. Shealy, 120 S.C. 276, 113 S.E. 131; Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S.E. 31; Groce v. Southern Ry. Co., 164 S.C. 427, 162 S.E. 425; and Keels v. Crosswell, 180 S.C. 63, 185 S.E. 39. Wilson v. Poston, 129 S.C. 345, 123 S.......
  • Lemmon v. Wilson, No. 15588.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 24, 1944
    ...v. [Atlantic] Lumber Co., 79 S.C. 166, 60 S.E. 445; Smith v. Clinkscales, 102 S.C. 227, 85 S.E. 1064; Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S. E. 31. * * * "In Duckett v. Butler, 67 S.C. 130, 45 S.E. 137, 138, the court said: 'When not in violation of some rule of law, the intention of t......
  • United States v. 15,883.55 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., Civil Action No. 203.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • April 14, 1944
    ...the intention of the grantor must be ascertained and effectuated if no settled rule of law is violated. Antley v. Antley, 132 S.C. 306, 128 S.E. 31. Intention is a term of art, and signifies the meaning of the writing. Sandford v. Sandford, 106 S.C. 304, 91 S.E. 294. It is always open to in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT