Johnson v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. Johnson

101 S.E. 309, 24 Ga. App. 513, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 888

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 26, 1919

Docket10676

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 309 (Johnson v. Johnson) 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

Johnson v. Johnson, 101 S.E. 309, 24 Ga. App. 513, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 888 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. While it is true that where a suit is defended by a person claiming as the transferee of a deceased person, the plaintiff is not allowed to testify in his own behalf against the title of the deceased person, as to transactions or communications had with the deceased person, whether the transactions or communications were had by the deceased person with the party testifying or with any other person (Civil Code of 1910, § 5858 (1)), still where the defendant was neither an indorsee nor an assignee, transferee, or persbnal representative of the deceased person from whom the plaintiff claimed to have acquired title, but the defendant claimed title under a third person, the court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to testify as follows (the suit being trover for the recovery of personal property) : “My husband, Turner Johnson [deceased], gave me his one-half interest in the cow.” White v. White, 71 Ga. 670; Florida Central R. Co. v. Usina, 111 Ga. 697, 700 (36 S. E. 928); Austin v. Collier, 112 Ga. 247 (37 S. E. 434); Boynton v. Reese, 112 Ga. 354 (37 S. E. 437).

2. The ruling announced in the preceding paragraph disposes of the only special ground of the motion for a new trial. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and no reason appears why the verdict should be set aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. While it is true that where a suit is defended by a person claiming as the transferee of a deceased person, the plaintiff is not allowed to testify in his own behalf against the title of the deceased person, as to transactions or communications had with the deceased person, whether the transactions or communications were had by the deceased person with the party testifying or with any other person (Civil Code of 1910, § 5858 (1)), still where the defendant was neither an indorsee nor an assignee, transferee, or persbnal representative of the deceased person from whom the plaintiff claimed to have acquired title, but the defendant claimed title under a third person, the court did not err in permitting the plaintiff to testify as follows (the suit being trover for the recovery of personal property) : “My husband, Turner Johnson [deceased], gave me his one-half interest in the cow.” White v. White, 71 Ga. 670; Florida Central R. Co. v. Usina, 111 Ga. 697, 700 (36 S. E. 928); Austin v. Collier, 112 Ga. 247 (37 S. E. 434); Boynton v. Reese, 112 Ga. 354 (37 S. E. 437).

2. The ruling announced in the preceding paragraph disposes of the only special ground of the motion for a new trial. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and no reason appears why the verdict should be set aside.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 309, 24 Ga. App. 513, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-johnson-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack