Dye v. Dye

Supreme Court of Georgia

Dye v. Dye

33 S.E. 848, 108 Ga. 741, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 322

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 21, 1899·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. A paper attested by three witnesses and, as a whole, manifestly testamentary in character, and which also contains a right of revocation by the maker, should, though having in some respects the form of a deed, be treated as a will. Barnes v. Stephens, 107 Ga. 442.

2. The trial judge did not err in holding that the papers involved in the present case were testamentary in character and not deeds, but ought not to have ordered them to he cancelled. Direction is given that so much of the judgment excepted to as requires the cancellation of these papers be stricken therefrom.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concurring. E. T. Shurley and E. P. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.

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

Fish, J.

1. A paper attested by three witnesses and, as a whole, manifestly testamentary in character, and which also contains a right of revocation by the maker, should, though having in some respects the form of a deed, be treated as a will. Barnes v. Stephens, 107 Ga. 442.

2. The trial judge did not err in holding that the papers involved in the present case were testamentary in character and not deeds, but ought not to have ordered them to he cancelled. Direction is given that so much of the judgment excepted to as requires the cancellation of these papers be stricken therefrom.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concurring. E. T. Shurley and E. P. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.

Dye v. Dye, 33 S.E. 848, 108 Ga. 741, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 322 (Ga. 1899).

Pincite

33 S.E. 848 (Dye v. Dye) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related