Bamberg Banking Co. v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 04 November 1921
• Docket Number: 10749.
• Citation: 109 S.E. 550,118 S.C. 83
• Parties: BAMBERG BANKING CO. v. MATTHEWS ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

109 S.E. 550

118 S.C. 83

BAMBERG BANKING CO. v. MATTHEWS ET AL.

No. 10749.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 4, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Bamberg County; Jas. E. Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by the Bamberg Banking Company against Addie Matthews and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Modified. The deed of 1908, referred to in the opinion, was executed by Amzi August and Sarah August, and delivered to Addie Matthews, conveying the 35-acre tract described in the complaint and in the mortgages to Addie Matthews, her heirs and assignees forever, being in all respects a feesimple deed with general warranty.

Jacob Moorer, of Orangeburg, for appellants.

E. H. Henderson, of Bamberg, for respondent.

WATTS, J.

This is an appeal from a decree of Judge Peurifoy. The action was for foreclosure of two mortgages. The defendants interposed a number of defenses. The exceptions are 11 in number. Exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are overruled. The appellants have failed to convince this court that the concurring findings of master and circuit court are against the preponderance of the evidence.

The question to be determined, as to whether Addie Matthews owns the property in fee simple as found by the circuit court, or whether, as appellants contend, she has an estate for life only, and that the infant defendants, the children of Addie, are remaindermen. The deed of Amzi August, made in October, 1882, is an absolute deed, and must govern; it was duly witnessed, signed, delivered, probated, and recorded. Dower was renounced thereon; it was a perfect deed. It reserves a life estate in grantor and wife, and creates a life estate in the children, remainder in fee in the grandchildren. It is a contingent remainder; the fee only remained in the grantor until the contingency happened, to wit, the birth of a grandchild or grandchildren, in any view of the case. The deed of 1908 was void, under the case of Rutledge v. Fishburne, 66 S.C. 155, 44 S.E. 564, 97 Am. St. Rep. 757. Addie did not own the fee, but only an estate for life, and her children are the remaindermen; and at her death own the land in fee, so the exceptions raising these questions, 8 and 9, are sustained. All other exceptions are overruled.

Judgment modified.

GARY, C.J., and FRASER and COTHRAN, JJ., concur.