Wayburn v. Smith, 20573
| Decision Date | 28 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 20573,20573 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mable T. WAYBURN, Respondent, v. James M. SMITH, Allie Walker, Ruby W. Hott, Margaret L. Carder, Raymond Walker, Larry Walker, Joyce W. All, Madean Carder, Lois W. Slashinski, Ruth W. Blalock, Betty Walker and Helen Walker, and all children and grandchildren of Allie Walker, Individually, and as representatives of the classes to which they belong as possible heirs of the body of Allie Walker, and all persons entitled to claim under or through them or any of them both known and unknown, in esse and unborn, also, all other persons unknown claiming any right, title, interest in or lien upon the real estate described in the Complaint herein, any unknown adults being a class designated as John Doe and any unknown infants or persons under disability or persons in military service designated as a class Richard Roe, also James W. Walker, Betty Ann Walker, Helen Elizabeth Walker, Mary Walker Deans, Scott Deans, Darren Deans, and Shane Deans, of whom Ruby W. Hott, Margaret L. Carder, Raymond Walker, Larry Walker, Joyce W. All, Madean Carder, Lois W. Slashinski, James W. Walker, Betty Ann Walker, Helen Elizabeth Walker, Mary Walker Deans, Scott Deans, Darren Deans, and Shane Deans are, Appellants. |
W. Reid Cox, Jr., of Graydon, Suber & Adams, and Luther M. Lee and Kenneth M. Suggs, Columbia, for appellants.
Marchant, Bates & Todd, Columbia, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff-respondent Mable T. Wayburn against James M. Smith for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate. Smith's answer alleged that Wayburn did not have fee simple title to the property by reason of the provisions of a deed from W. J. Wooten to Allie Walker, Wayburn's predecessor in title. The remaining defendants were either joined or moved to intervene on the grounds that they might have an interest in the property which is the subject of the action.
By order of the lower court the matter was referred to the Master in Equity for the taking of testimony and making recommendations. The master concluded in his report that Wayburn owned the property in fee simple and thus was able to convey a fee simple title. The circuit judge affirmed the master's report as to the result, and construed the deed as conveying a fee simple absolute. Certain heirs of Wayburn's predecessor in title (Allie Walker) appeal.
We are called upon to determine the estate conveyed by the deed from W. J. Wooten, grantor, to his daughter Allie Walker, grantee.
The premises of the deed states:
"Know All Men by These Presents, That I W. J. Wooten of Blythewood, S. C. desire to convey to Allie Walker this tract of land (100) acres to have and to hold her natural life, at her death it is to revert to heirs of her body."
The pertinent portion of the granting clause in the deed is as follows:
". . . I have granted, bargained, sold and released, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell and release unto the said Allie Walker . . ."
The deed contains the following habendum clause:
"To Have and To Hold all and singular the premises before mentioned unto the said Allie Walker her Heirs and Assigns forever."
The appellants contend that the premises of the deed created a life estate in Allie Walker with a remainder to the heirs of her body. Alternatively, they argue that the language may be construed together as creating a defeasible fee in Allie Walker, which fee is divested by her death with heirs of her body surviving. We disagree.
In the construction of this deed, we are guided by two settled rules of law. First, the intention of the grantor must be ascertained and effectuated, unless that intention contravenes some well settled rule of law or public policy. County of Abbeville v. Knox, 267 S.C. 38, 225 S.E.2d 863 (1976). Secondly, in ascertaining such intention the deed must be construed as a whole, and effect given to every part thereof, if such can be done consistently with law. Bean v. Bean, 253 S.C. 340, 170 S.E.2d 654 (1969).
It is the rule in this State that where an incomplete or indefinite estate is conveyed by the granting clause, as for instance where no words of inheritance accompany the grant, or where the granting clause creates a life estate, resort may be had to the habendum for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the grantor and thus a life estate may be enlarged into a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. Investors Title Ins. Co.
...if no settled rule of law is contravened." S. Ry. Co. v. Smoak, 243 S.C. 331, 336, 133 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1963); Wayburn v. Smith, 270 S.C. 38, 41, 239 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1977); Estate of Sherman ex rel. Maddock v. Estate of Sherman ex rel. Snodgrass, 359 S.C. 407, 413, 597 S.E.2d 850, 853 (Ct.......
-
Bennett v. Investors Title Ins. Co., 4153.
...if no settled rule of law is contravened." S. Ry. Co. v. Smoak, 243 S.C. 331, 336, 133 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1963); Wayburn v. Smith, 270 S.C. 38, 41, 239 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1977); Estate of Sherman, 359 S.C. at 413, 597 S.E.2d at 853; see also McDaniel v. Connor, 206 S.C. 96, 100, 33 S.E.2d 75, 7......
-
PBBM-Rose Hill, Ltd. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
...some well settled rule of law or public policy.’ " Windham , 381 S.C. at 199–201, 672 S.E.2d at 582–83 (quoting Wayburn v. Smith , 270 S.C. 38, 41, 239 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1977) ). "[T]he deed must be construed as a whole and effect given to every part if it can be done consistently with the l......
-
Hoyler v. State
...and effectuated, unless that intention contravenes some well settled rule of law or public policy.’ " (quoting Wayburn v. Smith , 270 S.C. 38, 41, 239 S.E.2d 890, 892 (1977) )); id. at 201, 672 S.E.2d at 583 ("In determining the grantor's intent, the deed must be construed as a whole and ef......