Buist v. Dawes
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Before Dunkin, Oh., at Charleston, June, 1850. For a full understanding of this case, as now reported, reference must he had to the first decision in the case, as reported 4 Strob.Eq.'37. Dunkin, Ch. It has been heretofore adjudged, that on the demise of John W. Sommers, in January, 1848, without issue ‘living at his death, the complainant, as the legal representative of James D. Sommers, deceased, was entitled to the personal property which passed under Edward Tonge’s will.
Read the full summary
Before Dunkin, Oh., at Charleston, June, 1850. For a full understanding of this case, as now reported, reference must he had to the first decision in the case, as reported 4 Strob.Eq.'37. Dunkin, Ch. It has been heretofore adjudged, that on the demise of John W. Sommers, in January, 1848, without issue ‘living at his death, the complainant, as the legal representative of James D. Sommers, deceased, was entitled to the personal property which passed under Edward Tonge’s will. It was also in proof, that at the death of James D. Sommers, in 1817, intestate, his estate, under the Act of 1791, was…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnston, Ch.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Little need be added to what the Chancellor has said, in his decree, in relation to the construction of the (so called) residuary clause of Charles E. Rowand’s will.
This testator was entitled, under his father’s will, to the annual interest, for life, of one-tenth part of a certain portion of the father’s estate, which, under the directions of the will, was sold, and the proceeds vested for his benefit. And besides what arrearages of this provision might be due him, at his death, there was nothing coming to him from his father’s estate. So that *294…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lever v. Lighting Galleries, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2007