warranty clause (South Carolina) · Go Syfert
← South Carolina issues

warranty clause in South Carolina

6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1911–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Knotts v. Joinergreen
sc · 1950 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006The deed at issue in Knotts v. Joiner, 217 S.C. 99, 102 , 59 S.E.2d 850, 851 (1950), “was a printed form but the warranty clause was so stricken with pen as to change it from the usual general warranty to a special warranty, that is, against the heirs of the grantor only.” A quitclaim deed, on the other hand, does not convey the fee, but only the right, title, and interest of the grantor.

2006The deed at issue in Knotts v. Joiner, 217 S.C. 99, 102 , 59 S.E.2d 850, 851 (1950), “was a printed form but the warranty clause was so stricken with pen as to change it from the usual general warranty to a special warranty, that is, against the heirs of the grantor only.” A quitclaim deed, on the other hand, does not convey the fee, but only the right, title, and interest of the grantor.

22
Martin v. Ragsdalegreen
· 1905 · cited in 2 South Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
2 sentences

2006Martin v. Ragsdale, 71 S.C. 67, 77 , 50 S.E. 671, 674 (1905).

2006Martin v. Ragsdale, 71 S.C. 67, 77 , 50 S.E. 671, 674 (1905).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Arvai v. Shaw green
sc · 1986
1 sentence

1988The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that “lack of privity does not bar a remote purchaser from suing an initial ven *80 dor on an implied warranty theory.” Arvai v. Shaw, 289 S. C. at 164, 345 S. E. (2d) at 716 .

11988–1988
Grainger v. Hamilton neutral
sc · 1955
1 sentence

1975The decision in Grainger v. Hamilton, 228 S. C. 318, 90 S. E. (2d) 209 is dispositive of the present issue.

11975–1975
McMichael v. McMichael green
· 1898
2 sentences

1955Indeed, in most cases where deeds drawn by unskillfull draughtsmen fail to carry the fee by reason of the omission of the requisite words of inheritance, the real intention of the parties is defeated, and we do not think the use of the word ‘heirs’ in the warranty clause can be used to establish such intention, especially where found in a deed so inartifically drawn as this is.” That it may be said to be “technical” is of no moment, as is seen from this quotation from McMichael v. McMichael, 51 S. C. 555, 29 S. E. 403 : “The technical rule of the common law makes it essential to the creation o

1955Indeed, in most cases where deeds drawn by unskillfull draughtsmen fail to carry the fee by reason of the omission of the requisite words of inheritance, the real intention of the parties is defeated, and we do not think the use of the word ‘heirs’ in the warranty clause can be used to establish such intention, especially where found in a deed so inartifically drawn as this is.” That it may be said to be “technical” is of no moment, as is seen from this quotation from McMichael v. McMichael, 51 S. C. 555, 29 S. E. 403 : “The technical rule of the common law makes it essential to the creation o

11955–1955
Crawford v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Co. green
sc · 1908
1 sentence

1911Upon the doctrine laid down in Crawford v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Company, 79 S. C. 166, 60 S. E. 445 , suffice it to say that under the construction we have given this deed, that case is not applicable 'because it is conceded by all the authorities that if the intent of the parties can be gathered from the instrument, that such intent must be given effect, and in this case we have found from the contract what that intent was, and in addition to this it may be stated that there was prior to the warranty clause in this case a distinct reference to such limitation of time to the apparently otherw

11911–1911

Where else courts name it

TX 51 (1895–2026) NY 24 (1872–2024) CA 22 (1932–2024) OK 16 (1932–2019) LA 15 (1929–2024) GA 14 (1886–2006) NC 12 (1892–2009) AL 12 (1917–2018) PA 11 (1933–2022) NJ 11 (1968–2019) IL 11 (1886–2012) MN 10 (1985–2015) ND 9 (1992–2020) WA 8 (1911–2002) CO 8 (1950–2015) MI 8 (1975–2018) OH 7 (1929–2010) VA 7 (1910–2012) FL 6 (1991–2008) SC 6 (1911–2006) IN 6 (1890–2017) MO 5 (1905–1988) MA 5 (1978–2009) KY 4 (1955–2015) NM 4 (1983–2025) WI 4 (1896–2025) MS 4 (1953–2008) VT 4 (1998–2026) CT 3 (1987–2015) DE 3 (2004–2022) SD 3 (1986–2008) UT 3 (1992–2021) MT 3 (1950–1953) WY 3 (1986–2016) ME 2 (1985–2002) OR 2 (1971–2022) DC 2 (1996–2024) MD 2 (1983–2001) AR 2 (1937–1974) AK 2 (1982–2014) IA 2 (2000–2020)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check