Lawrence v. Little

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lawrence v. Little

135 S.E. 734, 163 Ga. 138, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 40

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1926

DocketNo. 5316

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 734 (Lawrence v. Little) 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

Lawrence v. Little, 135 S.E. 734, 163 Ga. 138, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 40 (Ga. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial which complain of the admission of evidence over objection do not show error.

2. Movant complains of certain portions of the charge of the court. When these portions are considered in connection with the entire charge, no error is shown.

3. Movant complains that the court erred in not charging the jury on the subject of estoppel, contending that the claimant, having probated the will of the deceased and qualified as executor, is now estopped from claiming under the alleged contract. Held, that the court did not so err. The will, considered in the light of undisputed evidence, was not antagonistic to the contract. Claiming under the contract was not pursuing an inconsistent remedy. The will expressly recognized the contract. Moreover, the claimant was not shown to have received any benefits or emoluments from the estate under the will or by reason of its probate.

4. The evidence showing the contract was without substantial conflict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Mozley & Gann and H. B. Moss, for plaintiff. Anderson & Roberts, for defendants.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. The grounds of the motion for a new trial which complain of the admission of evidence over objection do not show error.

2. Movant complains of certain portions of the charge of the court. When these portions are considered in connection with the entire charge, no error is shown.

3. Movant complains that the court erred in not charging the jury on the subject of estoppel, contending that the claimant, having probated the will of the deceased and qualified as executor, is now estopped from claiming under the alleged contract. Held, that the court did not so err. The will, considered in the light of undisputed evidence, was not antagonistic to the contract. Claiming under the contract was not pursuing an inconsistent remedy. The will expressly recognized the contract. Moreover, the claimant was not shown to have received any benefits or emoluments from the estate under the will or by reason of its probate.

4. The evidence showing the contract was without substantial conflict.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Mozley & Gann and H. B. Moss, for plaintiff. Anderson & Roberts, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 734, 163 Ga. 138, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-little-ga-1926.