Bedgood v. Thomas

138 S.E.2d 313, 220 Ga. 262, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 513
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 28, 1964·No. 22595·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

While a court of equity has power to do whatever is necessary to preserve a trust and may, under certain circumstances, modify the terms of a trust, nevertheless, courts are without authority to re-write by construction an unambiguous will since the court can not substitute its will for that of the testator, whether wise or unwise. Code § 113-806; Hungerford v. Trust Co. of Ga., 190 Ga. 387 (9 SE2d 630); McClelland v. Johnson, 211 Ga. 348 (86 SE2d 97). The plain language here showing that the trust had terminated upon the happening of the event—the beneficiary attaining her majority—as stipulated in the will, the court did not err in its decree so finding and decreeing that the balance of the trust funds should be turned over to the guardian of the beneficiary who is now incompetent. Georgia law provides for the handling of property of incompetents by guardian, and this will be done here.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Bedgood v. Thomas, 138 S.E.2d 313, 220 Ga. 262, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 513 (Ga. 1964).

138 S.E.2d 313 (Bedgood v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harp v. Pryor
578 S.E.2d 424 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2003)
Friedman v. Teplis
492 S.E.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1997)
Findley v. Falise
878 F. Supp. 473 (E.D. New York, 1995)
In Re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litigation
878 F. Supp. 473 (S.D. New York, 1995)
Odum v. Henry
334 S.E.2d 304 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Crow v. Lewis
159 S.E.2d 77 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)