Pearson v. Easterling
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Shipp,' J., Bennettsville, Spring term, 1916. Action by IT. P. Pearson against H. T. Easterling and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.
Read the full summary
Before Shipp,' J., Bennettsville, Spring term, 1916. Action by IT. P. Pearson against H. T. Easterling and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. The following statement appears in the record: “This action has been once to the Supreme Court, and will be found reported in 104 S. C., at page 178, 88 S. E. 376, and states the facts as follows: “William C. Easterling died in 1866, leaving of force a last will and testament, bearing date the 26th of January, 1863, whereby, in the first paragraph thereof, he devised the lands in dispute to his wife, Martha Ann Easterling, to have…
1Concurrence
Under the devise in this case, each of the children of Mary Ann Easterling took a vested remainder, subject to be divested on his dying before the life tenant, leaving a child, who in that event, by the terms of the will, was to take by substitution in place of the deceased parent.Wilson v. McJunkin, 32 S.C. Eq (11 Rich. Eq.) 527;Brown v. McCall, 44 S.C. 519, 22 S.E. 823; Tindal v. Neal, 59 S.C. 4, 36 S.E. 1004. Therefore the limitation to plaintiff is what is called an alternative remainder, and not an executory devise.
So far as this case is concerned, it makes no difference whether…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rutledge v. FishburneSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1903
- Brown v. McCallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
- Gourdin v. DeasSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1887
- Smith v. ClinkscalesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
- Tindal v. NealSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.