Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson

160 S.E. 653, 43 Ga. App. 839, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 581
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 17, 1931
Docket21617; 21657
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 160 S.E. 653 (Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bank of Jonesboro v. Wilson, 160 S.E. 653, 43 Ga. App. 839, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 581 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The State of Georgia not having enacted any statutes setting up special procedure to enable administration to be had upon the estates of persons presumed to be deceased, so as to bring such administration within the due process of law clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, “it is absolutely essential to jurisdiction of the administration of an estate that the person on whose estate such administration is granted shall be dead. Any administration upon the estate of a living person is void; and while it is true that the presumption of death arising from a person’s absence, unheard from, for a considerable length of time may present a prima facie ease sufficient to warrant a grant of administration on his estate, the arising of such presumption does not take the case out of the operation of the general rule on the subject, and if it is made to appear that the person was in fact alive at the time such administration was granted, the administration is absolutely void. Payment to an administrator of cm absentee who is not in fact dead is no defense against the absentee.” (Italics ours.) 23 C. J. 1007, 1008; Redfearn’s Wills and Administration of Estates, 186, 187; 11 R. C. L. §§ 88-91; Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34 (14 Sup. Ct. 1108, 38 L. ed. 896).

(a) The decision of this court in Sligh v. Whitley, 41 Ga. App. 428 (153 S. E. 237), is-not in conflict with the above-stated ruling.

2. The foregoing rulings are controlling in the instant case, and the court properly directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodmorth, J., absent on account of illness.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Payne v. Home Savings Bank
18 S.E.2d 770 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Withers v. Root
73 P.2d 1113 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1937)
Ericsson v. Streitz
273 N.W. 17 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)
Wages v. National Surety Co.
179 S.E. 761 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
National Surety Co. v. Wages
173 S.E. 451 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 S.E. 653, 43 Ga. App. 839, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-jonesboro-v-wilson-gactapp-1931.