Graham v. Stansell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Graham v. Stansell

131 S.E.2d 103, 218 Ga. 832, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 340

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1963

Docket21999

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.E.2d 103 (Graham v. Stansell) 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

Graham v. Stansell, 131 S.E.2d 103, 218 Ga. 832, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 340 (Ga. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Where, as here, two instruments were drawn and dated the same day, each being executed with all the solemnity and legal requirements of a will in this State, and each referring to the other so that one could be stated to be a joint will to a single tract of land owned by the testators, and the other to the balance of their respective estates, even though each instrument reads that it is the joint last will and testament of the testators, “revoking any and all others heretofore made,” yet the body of the instrument devising the estate other than the farm tract shows no intent to revoke the separate will to the farm, if the will to the separate farm tract be made first, and the will to the farm showing clearly that it revoked only all other wills “to the said farm,” the lower court did not err in dismissing the caveat complaining that both instruments can not be probated as “the last will and testament of the deceased.” The two instruments are not repugnant to each other in any manner and are entitled to probate as the last will and testament or as such with codicil. 57 Am. Jur. 190, 191, Wills, § 228; Code §§ 113-109, 113-405; Castens v. Murray, 122 Ga. 396, 399 (50 SE 131, 2 AC 590); Byrd v. Riggs, 209 Ga. 59 (2) (70 SE2d 755). The caveat only objecting to the probate of both papers that they are “not as combined the last will and testament of the deceased” amounts to a mere conclusion of the pleader (law), depending only upon the language in the two instruments to defeat them by showing that one or the other revokes the other. There being no allegations showing the combination of act and intent to revoke, the caveat was properly dismissed. [833]*833Baucum v. Harper, 176 Ga. 296 (168 SE 27); Marlin v. Hill, 192 Ga. 434 (15 SE2d 473).

Submitted April 8, 1963 Decided April 16, 1963. Kemp & Watson, E. Ralph Ivey, for plaintiff in error. Parker, Clary & Kent, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Where, as here, two instruments were drawn and dated the same day, each being executed with all the solemnity and legal requirements of a will in this State, and each referring to the other so that one could be stated to be a joint will to a single tract of land owned by the testators, and the other to the balance of their respective estates, even though each instrument reads that it is the joint last will and testament of the testators, “revoking any and all others heretofore made,” yet the body of the instrument devising the estate other than the farm tract shows no intent to revoke the separate will to the farm, if the will to the separate farm tract be made first, and the will to the farm showing clearly that it revoked only all other wills “to the said farm,” the lower court did not err in dismissing the caveat complaining that both instruments can not be probated as “the last will and testament of the deceased.” The two instruments are not repugnant to each other in any manner and are entitled to probate as the last will and testament or as such with codicil. 57 Am. Jur. 190, 191, Wills, § 228; Code §§ 113-109, 113-405; Castens v. Murray, 122 Ga. 396, 399 (50 SE 131, 2 AC 590); Byrd v. Riggs, 209 Ga. 59 (2) (70 SE2d 755). The caveat only objecting to the probate of both papers that they are “not as combined the last will and testament of the deceased” amounts to a mere conclusion of the pleader (law), depending only upon the language in the two instruments to defeat them by showing that one or the other revokes the other. There being no allegations showing the combination of act and intent to revoke, the caveat was properly dismissed. [833]*833Baucum v. Harper, 176 Ga. 296 (168 SE 27); Marlin v. Hill, 192 Ga. 434 (15 SE2d 473).

Submitted April 8, 1963 Decided April 16, 1963. Kemp & Watson, E. Ralph Ivey, for plaintiff in error. Parker, Clary & Kent, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.E.2d 103, 218 Ga. 832, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-stansell-ga-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack