Hendley v. Payne

Decision Date25 May 1942
Docket Number15415.
Citation20 S.E.2d 401,200 S.C. 31
PartiesHENDLEY et al. v. PAYNE et al.
CourtSouth 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.

STUKES Justice.

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: "I give and bequeath unto my trustees hereinafter named, my engagement ring, my flat silver, punch bowls and ladles, my largest silver tray, my coffee service one dozen goblets engraved 'D. H. L.,' all of the furniture and fixtures in my home, my diamond wrist watch and my other jewelry not hereinabove specifically bequeathed, and all other items of my personal effects, my clothing, my linen and the like, which have not been disposed of in this will. These are to be held in trust until my niece, Dovie Hyatt Payne, reaches the age of twenty-one (21) years, at which time title to them shall vest in her. My trustees are authorized to turn over my clothing to her immediately upon my death and to allow her the use of such of the other items listed herein as in their judgment is desirable before she reaches the age of twenty-one (21). In case she dies before she reaches the age of twenty-one (21) I give and bequeath these articles to my brothers, Sidney Brown Hyatt, and Fred H. Hyatt, and to my sisters, Edna Hyatt Zobel, Minnie Hope Aughtry and Monte Hyatt Nicholson, share and share alike, the child or children of a deceased brother or sister to take his or her share."

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
1 cases
  • Weston v. Weston
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1947
    ...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......

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