Fields v. Watson

Citations

• 23 S.C. 42
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 77

Syllabus

<p>1. A deed conveying land to A “to have and to hold unto the said A during her natural life, and after her death to be equally divided between the lawful heirs of her body,” is not governed by the rule in Shelley’s Case. Me.. Justice McIver reserving his opinion.</p> <p>2. The act of 1853 (12 Slat., 298 ; Gen. Stat., $ 1862) has not abrogated the rule in Shelley’s Case. Mr. Justice McGowan dissenting.</p> <p>3. In action to try title, it appearing that the defendants were tenants in common with the plaintiffs, and no ouster being proved, the Circuit Judge granted a non-suit, and no motion was made before him for leave to amend. Held, That there being no error of law in granting the non-suit, the cause could not be remanded for the purpose'of permitting plaintiffs to amend their complaint and demand partition. Mr. Justice McGowan dissenting.</p> <p>4. The refusal of a tenant in common to comply with the demand of a co-tenant for the surrender of the entire premises, and the plea of the statute of limitations to an action by such co-tenant for the recovery of the whole land, do not constitute an ouster.</p> <p>5. A deed of conveyance by husband and wife in 1856 of the wife’s land without a renunciation by the wife of her inheritance, did not convey the wife’s interest, and at her death the land descended to her heirs at law.</p>