Bowman v. Bowman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bowman v. Bowman

60 S.E.2d 242, 207 Ga. 226, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1950

Docket17117

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 S.E.2d 242 (Bowman v. Bowman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowman v. Bowman, 60 S.E.2d 242, 207 Ga. 226, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 399 (Ga. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. The allegations of the petition as amended — showing rendition of a final judgment denying probate of the will, dated November 1, 1946, and that the judgment setting apart the propertj'- as a year’s support had been made the judgment of the court of ordinary and had been duly recorded in the ordinary’s office— were sufficient as against general demurrer to set forth a cause of action for the appointment of a receiver to preserve the property pending final adjudication on probate of the alleged will dated February 27, 1946, and cancellation of the quitclaim deed.

2. Accordingly, since the petitioner was entitled to some of the relief prayed for, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s demurrer. Arteaga v. Arteaga, 169 Ga. 595 (4) (151 S. E. 5); Rowland v. Rowland, 204 Ga. 603 (6) (50 S. E. 2d, 343).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

1. The allegations of the petition as amended — showing rendition of a final judgment denying probate of the will, dated November 1, 1946, and that the judgment setting apart the propertj'- as a year’s support had been made the judgment of the court of ordinary and had been duly recorded in the ordinary’s office— were sufficient as against general demurrer to set forth a cause of action for the appointment of a receiver to preserve the property pending final adjudication on probate of the alleged will dated February 27, 1946, and cancellation of the quitclaim deed.

2. Accordingly, since the petitioner was entitled to some of the relief prayed for, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s demurrer. Arteaga v. Arteaga, 169 Ga. 595 (4) (151 S. E. 5); Rowland v. Rowland, 204 Ga. 603 (6) (50 S. E. 2d, 343).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E.2d 242, 207 Ga. 226, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-bowman-ga-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack