Watson v. Watson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before WithehspooN, J., Edgefield, March, 1885. This is an appeal from the following decree: Plaintiffs contend that as defendant could take no interest in } land under the instrument until after the death of Tillman itson, Sr., and as said intended disposition was revocable, the trument must be construed as testamentary in its character. It .ontended that as a will the paper is invalid, as it has but two nesses.
Read the full summary
Before WithehspooN, J., Edgefield, March, 1885. This is an appeal from the following decree: Plaintiffs contend that as defendant could take no interest in } land under the instrument until after the death of Tillman itson, Sr., and as said intended disposition was revocable, the trument must be construed as testamentary in its character. It .ontended that as a will the paper is invalid, as it has but two nesses. The form of an instrument is important only so far t is evidence of what was intended. is to the form. The only evidence of a testamentary characfurnished by the instrument is that…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court -was delivered
Mr. Chiee Justice Simpson.
Tillman Watson, Sr., late of Edgefield County, died intestate February, 1874. He died childless, but he left surviving him his widow, the defendant, and several collateral kindred, among whom are the plaintiffs. The widow administered and all of the real estate admitted to belong to the deceased has been partitioned among the parties entitled. The widow, however, is in the possession of the homestead, containing some four hundred acres, which she claims under a deed *232executed by her husband in July, 1870, and which therefore was…
2Cited by2 opinions
- FLORIDA NAT. BANK & TRUST CO., ETC. v. HavrisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1979
- Wallace v. TaylorSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1924