DeLeon v. Barrett

Citations

• 22 S.C. 412
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 38

Syllabus

<p>1. On July 11 the Circuit judge ordered that the daily sessions of the court be dispensed with, but the term not to bo closed. The clerk of court thereafter opened and adjourned the court every day (Sundays excepted) until September 4, when the judge returned, held court, heard and determined this cause, and then adjourned the term sine die. The next succeeding term of court in this county, and the next succeeding court to be held by this judge were after this sine die adjournment. Held, that the ease was heard within the term. This case distinguished from Ex parte Lilly, 7 S. C., 373.</p> <p>2. A testator left certain property to his children and directed a division of his estate among them twenty years after his death, certain real estate devised to be accounted for by them at a valuation fixed in the will. By a codicil, the division was directed to be made at the end of ton years. All the property so given was to be held by his children during life, with contingent remainders over. At the expiration of ten years the executors sought the instruction of the court as to the proper distribution of the estate, all parties in interest, including all contingent remaindermen in esse, being defendants. These defendants agreed upon a proper distribution among the life-tenants and delivery of possession to them, which arrangement was approved and directed by the decree of the court, and on the appeal of some of the executors, the Circuit decree was affirmed.</p> <p>3. All the contingent remaindermen in esse being before the court, a decree might be made putting the life-tenants into possession of their shares, to be held by them under the limitations of the will; and such decree would be binding upon contingent remaindermen thereafter born.</p> <p>4. The case of LeEoy v. City Council of Charleston, 20 S. C., 71, explained.</p> <p>5. The executors appealing in this case should be allowed the expenses of their appeal out of the estate.</p>