Goodman v. Goodman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Goodman v. Goodman

138 S.E. 265, 36 Ga. App. 768, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 300

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1927

Docket18014

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.E. 265 (Goodman v. Goodman) 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

Goodman v. Goodman, 138 S.E. 265, 36 Ga. App. 768, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 300 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The two sole heirs of an estate have the right to interpose a caveat to an application for a year’s support; and the judge of the superior court correctly overruled the motion to dismiss the caveators’ appeal from an adverse decision of the court of ordinary for the alleged reason that the said heirs had no such right. Mathews v. Rountree, 123 Ga. 327 (51 S. E. 423).

2. In such a case one named as executor in an alleged will of the person who left the said estate, and who, as such executor, had also filed a caveat to the granting of the year’s support and whose appeal from the judgment of the court of ordinary to the superior court was dismissed on motion “because the will was never probated in solemn form and he never qualified as executor,” was a proper party to sign the appeal bond of the said heirs, and the court did not err in refusing to dismiss their appeal on the ground that “the only surety offered upon the appeal bond was a party at interest and the bond was void.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The two sole heirs of an estate have the right to interpose a caveat to an application for a year’s support; and the judge of the superior court correctly overruled the motion to dismiss the caveators’ appeal from an adverse decision of the court of ordinary for the alleged reason that the said heirs had no such right. Mathews v. Rountree, 123 Ga. 327 (51 S. E. 423).

2. In such a case one named as executor in an alleged will of the person who left the said estate, and who, as such executor, had also filed a caveat to the granting of the year’s support and whose appeal from the judgment of the court of ordinary to the superior court was dismissed on motion “because the will was never probated in solemn form and he never qualified as executor,” was a proper party to sign the appeal bond of the said heirs, and the court did not err in refusing to dismiss their appeal on the ground that “the only surety offered upon the appeal bond was a party at interest and the bond was void.”

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E. 265, 36 Ga. App. 768, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-goodman-gactapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack