general residuary clause in South Carolina

1996Furthermore, “unless a contrary intention is apparent, the general residuary clause is to be construed as including all of the estate not otherwise effectually disposed of.” Watson v. Wall, 229 S.C. 500 , 93 S.E. (2d) 918 (1956).

1996Furthermore, “unless a contrary intention is apparent, the general residuary clause is to be construed as including all of the estate not otherwise effectually disposed of.” Watson v. Wall, 229 S.C. 500 , 93 S.E. (2d) 918 (1956).

1976The applicable *309 rules of construction were thus stated in Dabney v. Estes, 262 S. C. 336, 204 S. E. (2d) 387 : “The construction to be placed upon the residuary clause must be determined in the light of the well settled principles that (1) when one makes a will, there is a presumption that he intends to dispose of the entire estate, and not to die intestate as to any part of it, MacDonald v. Fagan, 118 S. C. 510, 111 S. E. 793 ; and (2) no particular language is necessary to effect disposition of the entire residue of the estate, but the intention as shown by the will as a whole governs, W

1976The applicable *309 rules of construction were thus stated in Dabney v. Estes, 262 S. C. 336, 204 S. E. (2d) 387 : “The construction to be placed upon the residuary clause must be determined in the light of the well settled principles that (1) when one makes a will, there is a presumption that he intends to dispose of the entire estate, and not to die intestate as to any part of it, MacDonald v. Fagan, 118 S. C. 510, 111 S. E. 793 ; and (2) no particular language is necessary to effect disposition of the entire residue of the estate, but the intention as shown by the will as a whole governs, W

1957In Page on Wills, Lifetime Edition, Vol. 2, Section 928, page 856, it is stated: “Where a residuary clause is capable of two constructions, one of which, making it a general residuary clause, will result in the exclusion of testator’s heirs, and the other of which, making it a particular residuary clause, will leave a provision for testator’s heirs under the intestate laws, that provision will be preferred which leaves a provision for the heirs.” In Davis v. Davis, 62 Ohio St. 411 , 57 N. E. 317 , 319, the Court quoted with approval the following: “If the language of the testator, in a residua

1956Kirkland v. Moseley, 109 S. C. 477, 512, 96 S. E. 608 .

1946Generally, a lapsed legacy falls into the residuum, but here a part of the residuum itself is the lapsed legacy. *186 The case of Torre v. Chestnut, 159 S. C., 282, 156 S. E., 906 , 74 A. L.