Kimsey v. Allison

Supreme Court of Georgia

Kimsey v. Allison

47 S.E. 899, 120 Ga. 413, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 571

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 9, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 47 S.E. 899 (Kimsey v. Allison) 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

Kimsey v. Allison, 47 S.E. 899, 120 Ga. 413, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 571 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where to the prohate of a will a caveat is filed upon the ground that the testator has revoked it, declarations accompanying an act of revocation or attempted revocation are admissible in evidence (Patterson v. Hickey, 32 Ga. 156; Cobb v. Battle, 34 Ga. 458); but declarations of a-testator that his will had been lost or stolen and that it was no longer his will, these declarations not accompanying any act which could be construed as an act of revocation or attempted revocation, are inadmissible. Mallery v. Young, 94 Ga. 804; Jones v. Grogan, 98 Ga. 552; 1 Gr. Ev. (16th ed.) § 108.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where to the prohate of a will a caveat is filed upon the ground that the testator has revoked it, declarations accompanying an act of revocation or attempted revocation are admissible in evidence (Patterson v. Hickey, 32 Ga. 156; Cobb v. Battle, 34 Ga. 458); but declarations of a-testator that his will had been lost or stolen and that it was no longer his will, these declarations not accompanying any act which could be construed as an act of revocation or attempted revocation, are inadmissible. Mallery v. Young, 94 Ga. 804; Jones v. Grogan, 98 Ga. 552; 1 Gr. Ev. (16th ed.) § 108.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.E. 899, 120 Ga. 413, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimsey-v-allison-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack