
    John Jonah Murrell against William Mathews.
    
      Charleston District,
    
    1802.
    Where a fa-to his'son anil bodvT”vliieh ^'estateTail ^ e^marrian-e of such son, and having issue, will cre-timid fe™hi fjjh andhil ring the life will give a fee to purcha-the Temáhi-der-man.
    DEBT on bond, given in part payment for the consideration money of a tract of land in Georgetown district.
    In this case, the defendant, who had purchased the land in question, and had given his bond for the purchase-money, being apprehensive that the plaintiff’s title might not prove to be a good one, refused to pay the money until he had the . . . opinion oi the court upon the subject.
    The point therefore came before the court upon a special verdict, found in the district court at Georgetown, which stated, “ That Robert Murrell, the father of the plaintiff, “ by his last will and testament, legally executed, and bear-il ing date the 10th of March, 1789, did inter alia, give and “ devise unto his son John Jonah Murrell, the present Ci plaintiff, all his lands wheresoever they might be, to him, “ and the lawful heirs of his body; but in case he, or the “ lawful heirs of his body, should die without a lawful heir, « then and in that case, he devised the said plantation or “ tract of land, containing 1,240 acres more or less, where “ his son Jonah then resided, called Tiberin, to his grand- “ son Robert Huggins, to him and the lawful heirs of his “ body for ever.”
    fc'o. Liu.w.ii.^ Co. 34. i Roll 3
    The jury further found, “ that the testator died after “ making this will, and that his son, John Jonah Murrell, H took the above plantation under and by virtue of the u above devise. That the said John Jonah Murrell was “ lawfully married, and had issue born alive, and during “ the life-time of such issue, to wit, on the 9th of August, “ 1?94, the said John Jonah Murrell, did absolutely sell “ and convey the above plantation in fee-simple, to the de- “ fendant William Mathews; in part payment whereof, the M within bond was given. If under these circumstances, “ the said John Jonah Murrell, the plaintiff, had a right “ vested in him by the aforesaid devise, to the aforesaid “ plantation, and a right to sell and convey the same as he “ has done, then and in that case the jury find for the plain- “ tiff; but if he had no right to sell and convey the same, “ then they find for the defendant.”
   In this case, the Judges were all clearly of opinion, that the marriage of John Jonah Murrell, and birth of a child, gave him a conditional estate in fee in the land in question at the common law, And his having conveyed the same away during the life of such child, barred the remainder-man, and all claiming under him; and consequently, vested a good estate in fee in Matherws the defendant.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

All the Judges present.

M. B. The statute 13 Edward I. creating perpetuities by estates tail is not in force in this country, consequently what would make an estate tail in England, is a conditional fee in South Carolina, which is alienable on the donee’s having lawful issue.  