In Re Estate of Addie Etoy Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia

In Re Estate of Addie Etoy Harris

307 S.E.2d 482, 251 Ga. 535, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 872

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 27, 1983

Docket40069

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 307 S.E.2d 482 (In Re Estate of Addie Etoy Harris) 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

In Re Estate of Addie Etoy Harris, 307 S.E.2d 482, 251 Ga. 535, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 872 (Ga. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

The propounder appeals from judgment of the superior court sustaining the caveat to the last will and testament of Addie Etoy Harris.

1. Testamentary capacity was at issue before the jury. A subscribing witness, testifying for the propounder, was asked whether the testatrix was “of sound and disposing mind and memory” when the instrument was executed. The witness responded, “Yes, I think she was.” The court then sustained an objection by the caveatrix that the question — already asked and answered — “calls for a conclusion, which is the very issue that this Court is to determine.”

“A subscribing witness to a will may give his opinion as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will without setting forth facts upon which such opinion is founded.” Tinnerman v. Baldwin, 211 Ga. 532 (1) (87 SE2d 65) (1955). The cases of Scott v. Gibson, 194 Ga. 503 (22 SE2d 51) (1942), and Smoot v. Alexander, 188 Ga. 203 (2) (3 SE2d 593) (1939), do not contradict this principle because they relate to witnesses other than subscribing witnesses. Reid v. Wilson, 208 Ga. 235 (1) (65 SE2d 913) (1951).

The court should not have sustained the objection. However, this was harmless in light of the fact that the jury already had heard the answer of this witness, and already had heard the testimony of the *536 other subscribing witness that the testatrix “was decided and rational as to what she wanted done,” had signed the instrument “freely and voluntarily,” “was in her right mind,” “was not confused,” “knew what she was doing,” and “wanted to do what she did.” OCGA § 9-11-61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); Bailey v. Johnson, 245 Ga. 823, 828 (5) (268 SE2d 147) (1980).

Decided September 27, 1983 Rehearing denied October 19, 1983. John D. Watkins, for appellant. Edward B. Stalnaker, L. Valdi Cooper, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerations of error lack any merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Smith, J, who dissents.

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

Weltner, Justice.

The propounder appeals from judgment of the superior court sustaining the caveat to the last will and testament of Addie Etoy Harris.

1. Testamentary capacity was at issue before the jury. A subscribing witness, testifying for the propounder, was asked whether the testatrix was “of sound and disposing mind and memory” when the instrument was executed. The witness responded, “Yes, I think she was.” The court then sustained an objection by the caveatrix that the question — already asked and answered — “calls for a conclusion, which is the very issue that this Court is to determine.”

“A subscribing witness to a will may give his opinion as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will without setting forth facts upon which such opinion is founded.” Tinnerman v. Baldwin, 211 Ga. 532 (1) (87 SE2d 65) (1955). The cases of Scott v. Gibson, 194 Ga. 503 (22 SE2d 51) (1942), and Smoot v. Alexander, 188 Ga. 203 (2) (3 SE2d 593) (1939), do not contradict this principle because they relate to witnesses other than subscribing witnesses. Reid v. Wilson, 208 Ga. 235 (1) (65 SE2d 913) (1951).

The court should not have sustained the objection. However, this was harmless in light of the fact that the jury already had heard the answer of this witness, and already had heard the testimony of the *536 other subscribing witness that the testatrix “was decided and rational as to what she wanted done,” had signed the instrument “freely and voluntarily,” “was in her right mind,” “was not confused,” “knew what she was doing,” and “wanted to do what she did.” OCGA § 9-11-61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); Bailey v. Johnson, 245 Ga. 823, 828 (5) (268 SE2d 147) (1980).

Decided September 27, 1983 Rehearing denied October 19, 1983. John D. Watkins, for appellant. Edward B. Stalnaker, L. Valdi Cooper, for appellee.

2. The remaining enumerations of error lack any merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Smith, J, who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 S.E.2d 482, 251 Ga. 535, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-estate-of-addie-etoy-harris-ga-1983.

Opinion

2. The remaining enumerations of error lack any merit.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack