Rish v. Wingard
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before SeasR, J., Lexington, October, 1915. This is a suit .by Ridonia Elizabeth Rish against Mary Ann Wingard and others for the construction of the will of Adam Rish.
Read the full summary
Before SeasR, J., Lexington, October, 1915. This is a suit .by Ridonia Elizabeth Rish against Mary Ann Wingard and others for the construction of the will of Adam Rish. The paintiff-appellant makes the following statement of her case: “Adam Rish by his will devised his real estate of about 658 acres to his wife for life; after her death, to his daughter, Martha Howell, 50 acres; to his daughter, Julia Boles, 50 acres; and to his daughter, Ridonia Elizabeth, 100 acres; ‘and the remainder of my tract to go to my four daughters, viz., Nancy, Debby, Sibby and Mary Ann, to have, hold and keep,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, reciting the foregoing statement of facts, was delivered by
Mr. Justice; Fraser.
There are two questions: (1) The meaning of the word “heirs.” (2) The effect of marriage.
1 1. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” cannot have its technical meaning. If either should die without heirs, then to her sisters. The sisters are heirs in default of issue. Neither could die without heirs, if she left a sister. That would make a contradiction in terms. It is very manifest that the word “heirs” is used as synonymous with the word “issue.” See DuBose v. Flemming, 93 S. C. 182,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dubose v. FlemmingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
3Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. HickenlooperUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Stephenson v. KuntzWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1948
- Dobson v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1948