89 S.E. 400 | S.C. | 1916
June 30, 1916. The opinion of the Court, reciting the foregoing statement of facts, was delivered by There are two questions: (1) The meaning of the word "heirs." (2) The effect of marriage.
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,
2. Marriage could only effect a separation of possession, because there might be marriage without issue, and in the event of the death of one of the four without issue her share went to the survivor or survivors. There is nothing in the will to indicate a different intention.
The judgment is reversed. *42