Hillyer v. Ellis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Hillyer v. Ellis

155 S.E. 180, 171 Ga. 300, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 339

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1930

DocketNo. 7550

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 155 S.E. 180 (Hillyer v. Ellis) 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

Hillyer v. Ellis, 155 S.E. 180, 171 Ga. 300, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 339 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

Opinions

Russell, C. J.

The judge did not err in his rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, or in his instructions to the jury, of which complaint is made. They were correct as a matter of law, and were properly adjusted to the pleadings and the evidence. The case mainly turns upon a determination by the jury of the question whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind when the will was made. While there was some evidence that testator was irrational at several specified times, while suffering delirium, there was nevertheless no evidence that such was the case at the time he signed the will, but on the contrary there was direct testimony that at the time of the execution of the will he was rational and mentally normal, and his will as to the disposition of his property clear and distinct. . The evidence authorized the jury to find that at the time the will was executed the testator was competent to effect the disposition of his property by will. The judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., disqualified.

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

Russell, C. J.

The judge did not err in his rulings upon the admissibility of evidence, or in his instructions to the jury, of which complaint is made. They were correct as a matter of law, and were properly adjusted to the pleadings and the evidence. The case mainly turns upon a determination by the jury of the question whether the testator was of sound and disposing mind when the will was made. While there was some evidence that testator was irrational at several specified times, while suffering delirium, there was nevertheless no evidence that such was the case at the time he signed the will, but on the contrary there was direct testimony that at the time of the execution of the will he was rational and mentally normal, and his will as to the disposition of his property clear and distinct. . The evidence authorized the jury to find that at the time the will was executed the testator was competent to effect the disposition of his property by will. The judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 180, 171 Ga. 300, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hillyer-v-ellis-ga-1930.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack