Sease v. Sease

• Decision Date: 31 May 1902
• Citation: 41 S.E. 898,64 S.C. 216
• Parties: SEASE et al. v. SEASE et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

41 S.E. 898

64 S.C. 216

SEASE et al. v. SEASE et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 31, 1902

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Bamberg county; Benet Judge.

Action by F. P. Sease, M. A. Copeland, E. R. Kirkland, L. H. Sease W. D. Sease, G. P. Sease, and B. E. Jones against E. C Sease, W. E. Sease, and J. M. Dannelly, as assignee of F. M Bamberg. From decree, plaintiffs and two first named defendants appeal. Reversed.

Izlar Bros. & Rice and B. T. Rice, for appellants. Howell, Gruber & Bostick, for appellees.

GARY A. J.

This appeal raises the question whether his honor the circuit judge erred in construing the word "children" in the deed hereinafter set out to be equivalent to "heirs of the body." At the time the deed was executed, four of Mrs. Esther C. Sease's children were in esse, and afterwards others were born. The deed is as follows "State of South Carolina, Barnwell County. Know all men by these presents that I, John D. Sease, of the state and county aforesaid, for and in consideration of the sum of two thousand and five hundred dollars to me in hand paid by Esther C. Sease, of the state and county aforesaid, have granted, bargained, sold, and released, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, and release, unto the said Esther C. Sease and her children, all that plantation or tract of land: *** To have and to hold all and singular the said tract of twelve hundred and thirty-three acres of land, be the same more or less, together with all and singular the rights, members, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise incident or appertaining, unto the said Esther C. Sease and her children, her heirs and assigns, with a reserve to her husband, W. E. Sease, during his natural lifetime, but not subject to his contracts or debts, or those of any other husband which she may hereafter marry. And I do hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said premises unto the said Esther C. Sease and her children from and against the lawful claims or demands of any person or persons claiming the same or any part thereof." The deed shows that the consideration for the sale of the land was $2,500. It was unquestionably the intention of the grantor to dispose of the fee in the land without the possibility of a reversionary interest therein to himself, because he used the words "heirs" and "assigns." It is impossible to construe the deed so as to give force and effect to all its parts without changing the phraseology in some respects. The appellant contends that the intention of the grantor can be carried into effect...