Langford v. Spain

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Langford v. Spain

79 S.E.2d 582, 89 Ga. App. 416, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 978

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 24, 1953

Docket34895

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 79 S.E.2d 582 (Langford v. Spain) 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

Langford v. Spain, 79 S.E.2d 582, 89 Ga. App. 416, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 978 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinions

Carlisle, J.

1. Where a man dies intestate leaving no wife and no relatives except one daughter and the seven children of two deceased sons, if all the said surviving relatives are sui juris- and qualified to administer on the estate of the intestate, the person selected in writing by the daughter of the intestate is entitled to letters of administration in preference to the person selected in writing by the grandchildren of the intestate, although the grandchildren constitute a majority of the heirs of the estate both numerically and in point of interest. Dawson v. Shave, 162 Ga. 126 (132 S. E. 912); s. c., 35 Ga. App. 343 (133 S. E. 313); Sullens v. Pierce, 45 Ga. App. 207 (164 S. E. 93).

2. And this has been held to be true whether she is herself qualified or disqualified. Mabry v. Mabry, 65 Ga. App. 132 (15 S. E. 2d 447); Rivers v. Alsup, 188 Ga. 75 (2 S. E. 2d 632); Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458, 465; Sampson v. Sampson, 44 Ga. App. 803 (163 S. E. 326).

3. Under an application of the foregoing rules of law to the facts of this case, the jury, on appeal from the ordinary, had no discretion but to name the person selected by Mrs. Langford, as he is of sound mind and laboring under no disability and she was the sole next of kin. See, in this connection, Sampson v. Sampson, supra, and citations.

4. In view of the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other errors assigned in the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

1. Where a man dies intestate leaving no wife and no relatives except one daughter and the seven children of two deceased sons, if all the said surviving relatives are sui juris- and qualified to administer on the estate of the intestate, the person selected in writing by the daughter of the intestate is entitled to letters of administration in preference to the person selected in writing by the grandchildren of the intestate, although the grandchildren constitute a majority of the heirs of the estate both numerically and in point of interest. Dawson v. Shave, 162 Ga. 126 (132 S. E. 912); s. c., 35 Ga. App. 343 (133 S. E. 313); Sullens v. Pierce, 45 Ga. App. 207 (164 S. E. 93).

2. And this has been held to be true whether she is herself qualified or disqualified. Mabry v. Mabry, 65 Ga. App. 132 (15 S. E. 2d 447); Rivers v. Alsup, 188 Ga. 75 (2 S. E. 2d 632); Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458, 465; Sampson v. Sampson, 44 Ga. App. 803 (163 S. E. 326).

3. Under an application of the foregoing rules of law to the facts of this case, the jury, on appeal from the ordinary, had no discretion but to name the person selected by Mrs. Langford, as he is of sound mind and laboring under no disability and she was the sole next of kin. See, in this connection, Sampson v. Sampson, supra, and citations.

4. In view of the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other errors assigned in the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E.2d 582, 89 Ga. App. 416, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langford-v-spain-gactapp-1953.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack