Cureton v. Little, 111 S.E. 803 (S.C. 1922). · Go Syfert
Search
Cureton v. Little, 111 S.E. 803 (S.C. 1922). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gallo v. City of Philadelphia (ca3, 1998-12-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1922 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Gallo v. City of Philadelphia
3rd Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 139 F.3d 180, 183 (3d Cir.), cert. granted and denied, --- U.S. ----, ----, 119 S.Ct. 31 , 170, 141 L.Ed.2d 791 (1998); Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 577 (3d Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see" Gallo v. City of Philadelphia
3rd Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 139 F.3d 180, 183 (3d Cir.), cert. granted and denied, — U.S.-,-, 119 S.Ct. 31 , 170, 141 L.Ed.2d 791 (1998); Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 577 (3d Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cureton Et Al.
v.
Little Et Al.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 11, 1922.
111 S.E. 803
Mr. J. Frank Eppes , for appellants, cites: Rule in Shelley's case does not apply: 23 S.C. 46 ; 24 S.C. 304 ; 17 S.C. 130 . Mr. Oscar Hodges , for respondents, cites: Rule in Shelley's case applicable: 1 Rich. Eq., 411; 48 S.C. 440 ; 65 S.C. 345 ; 67 S.C. 307 ; 91 S.C. 183 ; 94 S.C. 308 ; 103 S.C. 202 ; 87 S.C. 60 ; 93 S.C. 213 ; 102 S.C. 7 .
Gary, Cothran.

Lead Opinion

April 11, 1922. The opinion of the Court was delivered by For the reasons assigned by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN: I concur upon the ground that items 8, 9, and 10 of the will were not intended to apply to the estates devised in 2, 3, and 4. I think that the doctrine of Adams v. Verner, 102 S.C. 7; 86 S.E., 211, should be limited to devises which carry, directly, complete estates, as "to A. and his heirs," or "heirs of his body," and should *Page 39 not be applied to cases of this character, "to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of his body," where a fee conditional can only be established by invoking the rule in Shelley's case. In such cases the inquiry should be wide open, whether the technical words were intended to be so used, or in the sense of children. Report Master's report and circuit decree.

Lead Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

For the reasons assigned by his Honor, the Circuit Judge, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Concurrence

Mr. Justice Cothran:

I concur upon the ground that items 8, 9, and 10 of the will were not intended to apply to the estates devised in 2, 3, and 4. I think that the doctrine of Adams v. Verner, 102 S. C., 7; 86 S. E., 211, should be limited tó devises which carry, directly, complete estates, as “to A. and his heirs,” or “heirs of his body,” and should[*39] not be applied to cases of this character, ‘‘to A. for life, remainder to the heirs of his body,” where a fee conditional can only be established by invoking the rule in Shelley’s case. In such cases the inquiry should be wide open, whether the technical words were intended to be so used, or in the sense of children. Report Master’s report and circuit decree.