Cobb v. Edmondson

30 Ga. 30
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1860
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 Ga. 30 (Cobb v. Edmondson) 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
Cobb v. Edmondson, 30 Ga. 30 (Ga. 1860).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

It was no error in the Court to substitute, upon motion, the name of the new trustee, in the place of the former trustee — Peyton L. Wade — any more than it would be one prochiem ami, or guardian ad litem, in lieu of another, which is the every-day practice. The Act of 1859 expressly authorizes it. It was the law before.

As to the second error assigned, we are clear that Mr. [32]*32Powell, the husband, was not a competent witness to testify, in respect to the separate estate of his wife, although she was not the party to the record, but yet the direct beneficiary of the suit; and all the authorities concur upon this point. (1 Greenleaf. Ev., sec. 341. 1 Burr, 424; 4 F. Rep., 668; 5 Beav., 443; & Bin., 483; 2 Stark on Co., Part 1, 550, 551.) He is excluded, not so much on the score of interest and the temptation to commit perjury, but upon a great ground of public policy — the preservation of domestic peace and conjugal confidence.

For admitting the evidence of Mr. Powell, the husband, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed.

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

Related

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Koehler
137 S.E. 85 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ga. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cobb-v-edmondson-ga-1860.