Shealy v. Shealy Et At

Decision Date05 July 1922
Docket Number(No. 10924.)
Citation113 S.E. 131
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSHEALY. v. SHEALY et at.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court, Newberry County; Edward McIver, Judge.

Action by L. Thompson Shealy against Sallie Etidora Shealy and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The deed referred to in the opinion follows:

"The State of South Carolina, Newberry County.

"Know all men by these presents, that I, Mary J. Shealy, of Newberry county in the state aforesaid, for and in consideration of the sum of fourteen hundred and forty ($1,440) dollars, to me in hand paid at and before the sealing of these present by Thompson L. Shealy of Newberry county in the state aforesaid (the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged), have granted, bargained, sold, and released, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, and release unto the said Thompson L. Shealy, his heirs and assigns forever, subject to the covenants, conditions, terms, and limitations hereinafter set forth, all that tract, parcel or plantation of land lying, being and situate in Newberry county and state of South Carolina, containing forty-eight (48) acres, more or less, and being bounded by lands of Mrs. S. E. Moore Mrs. Mary J. Shealy, Sidney Derrick, Ed Wise, Pat Wise and possibly others, said lands being more definitely described by plat thereof made by G. A. Mills (surveyor) on the 15th day of August, 1912. Together with all and singular the rights, members, hereditaments and appurtenances to the said premises belonging, or in anywise incident or appertaining. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said premises before mentioned unto the said Thompson L. Shealy, for and during the term of his natural life, and at his death to vest in fee simple to the heirs at law of the said Thompson L. Shealy and their heirs and assigns forever.

"And I do hereby bind myself and my heirs, executors and administrators, to warrant and forever defend all and singular the said premises unto the said Thompson L. Shealy, his heirs and assigns, against me and my heirs and all persons lawfully claiming or to claim the same, or any part thereof.

"Witness my hand and seal this 17th day, of August, in the year of our Lord, 1912, and in the 137th year of the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America.

"Mary J. Shealy. (L. S.)

"Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of "E. L. Shealy.

"Olin O. Shealy."

The circuit judge's decree follows:

"This is an action brought by the plaintiff to have a deed which was given to him by Mary J. Shealy on August 17, 1912, construed. The wife of the plaintiff, Sallie Eudora Shealy, and all of his children are made parties defendant, and were properly served with the summons and complaint. All of said children are minors and are represented by J. B. Hunter, Esq., as their guardian ad litem, who has been properly appointed as such. The plaintiff contends that said deed conveys a fee-simple title, and he is joined in this contention by his wife, Sallie Eudora Shealy, one of the defendants. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Glasgow v. Glasgow, 16617
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1952
    ...conclusion the following decisions were cited: Ex parte Yown, 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, 18......
  • Bethea v. Young
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1931
    ...441, 89 S.E. 405; Cayce Land Co. v. Guignard, 124 S.C. 450, 117 S.E. 644; Strother v. Folk, 123 S.C. 135, 115 S.E. 605; Shealy v. Shealy, 120 S.C. 280, 113 S.E. 131; Glenn v. Jamison, 48 S.C. 316, 26 S.E. Cureton v. Little, 119 S.C. 36, 111 S.E. 803; Jennings v. Talbert, 77 S.C. 458, 58 S.E......
  • Stylecraft, Inc. v. Thomas
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1968
    ...that estate may not be cut down by subsequent words in the same instrument. Glenn v. Jamison, 48 S.C. 316, 26 S.E. 677; Shealy v. Shealy, 120 S.C. 276, 113 S.E. 131; Groce v. Southern Railway Co., 164 S.C. 427, 162 S.E. 425; Hewitt v. Hewitt, 187 S.C 86, 196 S.E. 541; Page v. Lewis, 209 S.C......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Smoak
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 17, 1963
    ...the habendum clause cannot be considered in determining the estate conveyed: Glenn v. Jamison, 48 S.C. 316, 26 S.E. 677; Shealy v. Shealy, 120 S.C. 276, 113 S.E. 131; Groce v. Southern Railway Company, 164 S.C. 427, 162 S.E. 425; Glasgow v. Glasgow, 221 S.C. 322, 70 S.E.2d The foregoing cas......
  • 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