Hendley v. Payne
Decision Date | 25 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 15415. |
Citation | 20 S.E.2d 401,200 S.C. 31 |
Parties | HENDLEY et al. v. PAYNE et al. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Heyward Brockinton and F. Ehrlich Thomson, both of Columbia, for appellant.
Alice Robinson and Jos. L. Nettles, Jr., both of Columbia, for respondent.
Mrs. Dovie Hyatt Lorick of Columbia died early in 1941, leaving of force her will, afterward duly admitted to probate in Richland County, in which it was provided in Item 12 as follows:
This action was brought by the executors, who are also the trustees, to, among other things, obtain the sanction of the Court of the sale of some of the furniture, other than that selected for use by the niece of the testatrix who it appears formerly lived with her benefactress, was thirteen years old when the action was brought and was then living with her father who, however, died during the pendency of the appeal. It was alleged that the only alternative is to store such now unneeded furniture, the expense of which would be relatively high and the articles would deteriorate and depreciate in value during the apparently necessary period of preservation until the beneficiary reaches the age of twenty-one. It is in the former home of the testatrix which passed otherwise under a different devise of the will and has to be removed therefrom.
These allegations were sustained by proof but the Master held that under the terms of the will storage of the furniture is obligatory. Upon exceptions the trial Judge decided otherwise, to wit, that the proposed sale would be proper and advantageous and directed such, and the trustees will hold and invest the proceeds subject to the disposition prescribed by the quoted terms of the will; and the circuit order provided that the contingent remaindermen, the brothers and sisters of the testatrix, be permitted to purchase any item of the furniture at its respective appraised value.
The contingent remaindermen aforementioned,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Weston v. Weston
...and State ex rel. Daniel v. Strong, 185 S.C. 27, 192 S.E. 671. But compare Lesesne v. Cheves, 105 S.C. 432, 90 S.E. 37; Hendley v. Payne, 200 S.C. 31, 20 S.E.2d 401; Wingard v. Hennessee, 206 S.C. 159, 33 S.E.2d 390. There can be no quarrel with this general statement of the law, but it may......