Gormley v. Watson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gormley v. Watson

171 S.E. 880, 48 Ga. App. 46, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 451

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 27, 1933

Docket22907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 880 (Gormley v. Watson) 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

Gormley v. Watson, 171 S.E. 880, 48 Ga. App. 46, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 451 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. The Supreme Court, in answer to certified questions propounded by this court, held that the next of kin and the next of kin who are also legatees under the will of a testator are entitled to notice of proceedings of resignation of an executor, and that the failure to give such notice rendered a judgment thereon a nullity. Gormley v. Watson, 177 Ga. 763 (171 S. E. 280). The proceeding in this case was a direct attack on such judgment in the court in which it was rendered, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and, it appearing that the notice required to give the court jurisdiction to render such judgment was not given, the judgment was properly set aside. See, in this connection, Whitaker v. Smith, 33 Ga. 237; Singer v. Middleton, 135 Ga. 825 (70 S. E. 662); Davis v. Albritton, 127 Ga. 517 (56 S. E. 514, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820, 119 Am. St. R. 352) ; Boyd v. Glass, 34 Ga. 253 (89 Am. D. 252). Even conceding, for the sake of the argument, that the attack here made was collateral, the lack of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the record, and therefore the judgment was a nullity and could be attacked anywhere and by anybody. Jones v. Smith, 120 Ga. 642 (48 S. E. 134) ; Wash v. Dickson, 147 Ga. 540 (94 S. E. 1009).

2. The court did not err in excluding evidence offered by defendants for the purpose of showing a ratification and estoppel on the part of Mrs. Watson, widow of the testator, as she was not the next of kin of the testator and no notice to her would estop, or waive notice required to be given to next of kin, who was a child of the testator and who was the person most beneficially interested under the will. Head v. Bridges, 67 Ga. 232.

3. Under these rulings the court did not err in overruling the demurrer and the motion to strike certain parts of the petition, and in directing a verdict for plaintiffs.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Guerry, J.

1. The Supreme Court, in answer to certified questions propounded by this court, held that the next of kin and the next of kin who are also legatees under the will of a testator are entitled to notice of proceedings of resignation of an executor, and that the failure to give such notice rendered a judgment thereon a nullity. Gormley v. Watson, 177 Ga. 763 (171 S. E. 280). The proceeding in this case was a direct attack on such judgment in the court in which it was rendered, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and, it appearing that the notice required to give the court jurisdiction to render such judgment was not given, the judgment was properly set aside. See, in this connection, Whitaker v. Smith, 33 Ga. 237; Singer v. Middleton, 135 Ga. 825 (70 S. E. 662); Davis v. Albritton, 127 Ga. 517 (56 S. E. 514, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 820, 119 Am. St. R. 352) ; Boyd v. Glass, 34 Ga. 253 (89 Am. D. 252). Even conceding, for the sake of the argument, that the attack here made was collateral, the lack of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the record, and therefore the judgment was a nullity and could be attacked anywhere and by anybody. Jones v. Smith, 120 Ga. 642 (48 S. E. 134) ; Wash v. Dickson, 147 Ga. 540 (94 S. E. 1009).

2. The court did not err in excluding evidence offered by defendants for the purpose of showing a ratification and estoppel on the part of Mrs. Watson, widow of the testator, as she was not the next of kin of the testator and no notice to her would estop, or waive notice required to be given to next of kin, who was a child of the testator and who was the person most beneficially interested under the will. Head v. Bridges, 67 Ga. 232.

3. Under these rulings the court did not err in overruling the demurrer and the motion to strike certain parts of the petition, and in directing a verdict for plaintiffs.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 880, 48 Ga. App. 46, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gormley-v-watson-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack