Dent v. Dent
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Action by E. H. Dent and others against Samuel H. Dent and others. From the judgment, defendants, Helen A. Covington Quarterman and others, appeal. submit: The gift to Ben T. Dent lapsed and must be divided among the heirs at law and distributees of testator: Vol. I, Code 1912, sec. 3574; 56 S. C. 11; 26 S. C. 450; 17 S. C. 428; 13 Rich.
Read the full summary
Action by E. H. Dent and others against Samuel H. Dent and others. From the judgment, defendants, Helen A. Covington Quarterman and others, appeal. submit: The gift to Ben T. Dent lapsed and must be divided among the heirs at law and distributees of testator: Vol. I, Code 1912, sec. 3574; 56 S. C. 11; 26 S. C. 450; 17 S. C. 428; 13 Rich. Eq. 104. The circumstances necessary to create a gift by implication are lacking: Case note 15 D. R. A. (N. S.) 73; Alexander’s Com. on Wills, sec. 968; Alexander’s Com. on Wills, sec. 771 (citing 37 Am. Dec. 524), sec. 965, citing 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 73; 19…
1Dissent
However much we may regret the testator's ignorance of the law, or his lack of foresight in failing to express in his will the intention which we are asked to infer from the circumstances, we are not at liberty to violate the law and rules of construction, which are the landmarks of property, to give effect to a supposed intention, which the testator did not express and which cannot, according to the settled rules of construction, be gathered from the language of his will.
The statute requires that wills shall be in writing. Unless, therefore, the testator's intention is expressed in writing,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Roundtree v. RoundtreeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1887
- Key v. WeathersbeeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1895
- Rivers v. RiversSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
- Pratt v. McGheeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1882
- Suber v. NashSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.