Holbrooks v. Holbrooks

Supreme Court of Georgia

Holbrooks v. Holbrooks

116 S.E. 786, 155 Ga. 363, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 69

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1923

DocketNo. 3518

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 786 (Holbrooks v. Holbrooks) 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

Holbrooks v. Holbrooks, 116 S.E. 786, 155 Ga. 363, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 69 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. “ Ordinarily, in a suit instituted or defended by a husband for or against a deceased person, it is competent for the wife to testify in regard to transactions between the husband and the deceased. Mere personal interest, such as that entertained by a near relative, does not disqualify a witness.” Kitchens v. Poole, 146 Ga. 229 (5) (91 S. E. 81). It does not appear that the wife, who was introduced as a witness, had any pecuniary interest in the result of the suit; therefore she was not an incompetent witness.

2. The death of one of the parties to a litigation does not render the other party entirely incompetent to testify as a witness, “ but only incompetent to testify to transactions or communications with the deceased. Independent physical facts which do not involve any such communication or transaction are not within the rule.” Nugent v. Watkins, 129 Ga. 382 (1), 383 (58 S. E. 888). Chamblee v. Pirkle, 101 Ga. 790, 792 (29 S. E. 20). The evidence to which objection was offered in the present case, under the above-stated rule, was properly admitted.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

4. The verdict is supported by evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Harper Hamilton and Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. M. B. Eubanks, contra.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. “ Ordinarily, in a suit instituted or defended by a husband for or against a deceased person, it is competent for the wife to testify in regard to transactions between the husband and the deceased. Mere personal interest, such as that entertained by a near relative, does not disqualify a witness.” Kitchens v. Poole, 146 Ga. 229 (5) (91 S. E. 81). It does not appear that the wife, who was introduced as a witness, had any pecuniary interest in the result of the suit; therefore she was not an incompetent witness.

2. The death of one of the parties to a litigation does not render the other party entirely incompetent to testify as a witness, “ but only incompetent to testify to transactions or communications with the deceased. Independent physical facts which do not involve any such communication or transaction are not within the rule.” Nugent v. Watkins, 129 Ga. 382 (1), 383 (58 S. E. 888). Chamblee v. Pirkle, 101 Ga. 790, 792 (29 S. E. 20). The evidence to which objection was offered in the present case, under the above-stated rule, was properly admitted.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

4. The verdict is supported by evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Harper Hamilton and Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. M. B. Eubanks, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 786, 155 Ga. 363, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holbrooks-v-holbrooks-ga-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack