Cox v. Newby
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Rice, J., Greenville, Action by Tench Cox, Mrs. Carey Johnson and Mrs. Jane Hood, plaintiffs, against Mary C. Newby and Lela I. McKinney, defendants, for partition. The facts are stated in opinion of the Court. The master for Greenville county, J. W. Gray, Esq., held that the word “heirs” was so qualified, as used in the deed, as to mean children then living, and cited 91 S. C. 300; 71 S. C. 279; 3 Strob. Eq. (22 S. C. Eq.) 86; 3 Rich. Eq.
Read the full summary
Before Rice, J., Greenville, Action by Tench Cox, Mrs. Carey Johnson and Mrs. Jane Hood, plaintiffs, against Mary C. Newby and Lela I. McKinney, defendants, for partition. The facts are stated in opinion of the Court. The master for Greenville county, J. W. Gray, Esq., held that the word “heirs” was so qualified, as used in the deed, as to mean children then living, and cited 91 S. C. 300; 71 S. C. 279; 3 Strob. Eq. (22 S. C. Eq.) 86; 3 Rich. Eq. (24 S. C. Eq.) 156; 36 S. C. 38, and 42 S. C. 342. The Circuit Court reversed the master’s report, and held tha-t the children took no estate, and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydrick.
The question here is the proper construction of a deed conveying real estate, which is regular and in the usual form. In the premises the grant is to Elizabeth J. Cox. The habendum is “unto the said Elizabeth J. Cox and her heirs begotten by her present husband, George Cox, forever.” Then follows a full covenant of warranty “unto the said Elizabeth J. Cox and her heirs by George Cox.”
At date of the deed, Mrs. Cox had five children by George Cox. Two of them predeceased her. She died in 1912, after having conveyed the land in fee…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Church v. MoodySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914
3Cited by2 opinions
- General Land & Inv. Co. v. VallentineSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1936
- United States v. 15,883.55 Acres of LandDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1944