Zobel v. Little, 113 S.E. 68 (S.C. 1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Zobel v. Little, 113 S.E. 68 (S.C. 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Neville v. Classic Gardens (gasd, 2001-01-17)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Neville v. Classic Gardens
S.D. Ga. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See 28 U.S.C. § 530 (b) (“An attorney for the Government shall be subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State”), quoted in U.S. v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119 , 1124 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 889 , 120 S.Ct. 212 , 145 L.Ed.2d 178 (1999).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Safiallah Muhammad Nelson
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1122 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 212 , 145 L.Ed.2d 178 (1999). 4 .
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Safiallah Muhammad Nelson
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1122 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 212 (1999). 4 924(a)(1)(A) prohibits individuals from making false statements or representations with respect to the information federally licensed firearms dealers are required to keep in their records, as follows: whoever— (A) knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter . . . .... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 92…
cited Cited "see" Donald K. Stern v. United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
1st Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 212 , 145 L.Ed.2d 178 (1999).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Orange
10th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lowery, 166 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 212 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Zobel
v.
Little.
10941.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 5, 1922.
113 S.E. 68
1922 S.C. LEXIS 111
Messrs. Moffat Marion , for appellant, cite: Habendum repugnant to the grant, and the grant should control: 13 Cyc. 619: 39 S.C. 271 : Intention should govern: 99 S.E. 356 . Mr. Alfred Wallace, Jr. , for respondent, cites: Habendum determines the estate and deed granted a fee simple title: 94 S.C. 1 ; 96 S.C. 233 ; 57 S.C. 173 .
Gary.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

The only question in this case is whether or not plaintiff has a fee simple title to the land described in the complaint, so as to be able to convey a fee simple title to the defendant. The master and the Circuit Judge both held that the plaintiff had a fee simple title; and the Circuit Judge decreed that defendant must perform her contract. From this decree defendant appealed on the following exceptions:

“The defendant, Louise Zobel Little, excepts to the decree of his Honor in the above-entitled case, for the reason, it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor erred in holding that the defendant should perform her contract, for the reason that plaintiff had tendered her a title which would convey the land in fee simple; said error being that plaintiff had only a life estate in said land, and could not therefore convey the land in fee simple.”

The deed contains this provision out of which the controversy arose:

“Said property is conveyed to Edna Hyatt Zobel and is her property during her natural life. At her death it is to become the property of her heirs then living.”

The habendum in the deed is as follows:

“To have and to hold all and singular the premises before mentioned, unto the said Edna Hyatt Zobel, heirs and assigns forever.”

[*214] The warranty clause is as follows:

“And I do hereby bind myself, my heirs, executors and administrators, to warrant and forever defend, all and singular the said premises unto the said Edna Hyatt Zobel, her heirs and assigns, against me and my heirs lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof.”

It was the intention of the grantor to convey the fee to Edna Hyatt Zobel. This is shown by the words, “said property is conveyed to Edna Hyatt Zobel and is her property during her natural life,” in the granting clause, and by the habendum which enlarged her life estate into a fee. No reference is made in the habendum to the words “at her death it is to become the property of her heirs then living.”

The authorities cited and the principles announced in the case of Smith v. Clinkscales, 102 S. C. 227, 85 S. E. 1064, show that the exception cannot be sustained.

Affirmed.