Cox v. Cox

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cox v. Cox

165 S.E. 286, 45 Ga. App. 478, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 572

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 10, 1932

Docket22124

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.E. 286 (Cox v. Cox) 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

Cox v. Cox, 165 S.E. 286, 45 Ga. App. 478, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 572 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Conceding, but not admitting, that the exceptions pendente lite are without merit, we do not think that the evidence authorized the jury to find that the plaintiff executor was entitled to recover for extraordinary services rendered as coexecutor of the estate. See Pearce v. Smith, 38 Ga. App. 413 (144 S. E. 43); Civil Code (1910), § 4067. An allowance for such services can be made only when they were of an extraordinary character. It should not be made for the performance of any of the duties ordinarily incident to the administration of the estate. 24 C. J. 988, § 2423. In our opinion the verdict allowing compensation for extraordinary services was unauthorized, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

J udgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and J enlcins, P. J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Conceding, but not admitting, that the exceptions pendente lite are without merit, we do not think that the evidence authorized the jury to find that the plaintiff executor was entitled to recover for extraordinary services rendered as coexecutor of the estate. See Pearce v. Smith, 38 Ga. App. 413 (144 S. E. 43); Civil Code (1910), § 4067. An allowance for such services can be made only when they were of an extraordinary character. It should not be made for the performance of any of the duties ordinarily incident to the administration of the estate. 24 C. J. 988, § 2423. In our opinion the verdict allowing compensation for extraordinary services was unauthorized, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

J udgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and J enlcins, P. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 286, 45 Ga. App. 478, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-cox-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack