Northrop v. Troup

Fifth Circuit

Northrop v. Troup

195 F. 262, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1376

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 9, 1912

DocketNos. 2,190, 2,191

StatusPublished

This text of 195 F. 262 (Northrop v. Troup) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northrop v. Troup, 195 F. 262, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1376 (5th Cir. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The questions involved on these writs of error are with one slight exception identical with those in Northrop v, Columbian Lumber Company, decided by this court February 7, 1911, and reported in 186 Fed. 770, 108 C. C. A. 640. The only exception is in the ruling of the trial court in the present cases that the will of Claudius B. Northrop, plaintiffs’ ancestor, was not admissible in evidence, because not probated in the state of Georgia until after the institution of the action, while in Northrop v. Columbian Lumber Company, supra, the will was admitted on the trial, and the effect thereof • disputed in this court.

As, in our opinion, in the case above referred to, title under a will is shown to vest at the time of the death of the testator, and not at the time of the probate of the will, and as we then considered Deas v. Sammons, 126 Ga. 431, 55 S. E. 170, 7 Ann. Cas. 1124, and other cases cited in the briefs, it seems to be clear that the will of Claudius B. Northrop was admissible in evidence, and that for the reasons given in Northrop v. Columbian Lumber Company, supra, the judgment in each of the above entitled and numbered cases should be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to award a new trial.

And it is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

The questions involved on these writs of error are with one slight exception identical with those in Northrop v, Columbian Lumber Company, decided by this court February 7, 1911, and reported in 186 Fed. 770, 108 C. C. A. 640. The only exception is in the ruling of the trial court in the present cases that the will of Claudius B. Northrop, plaintiffs’ ancestor, was not admissible in evidence, because not probated in the state of Georgia until after the institution of the action, while in Northrop v. Columbian Lumber Company, supra, the will was admitted on the trial, and the effect thereof • disputed in this court.

As, in our opinion, in the case above referred to, title under a will is shown to vest at the time of the death of the testator, and not at the time of the probate of the will, and as we then considered Deas v. Sammons, 126 Ga. 431, 55 S. E. 170, 7 Ann. Cas. 1124, and other cases cited in the briefs, it seems to be clear that the will of Claudius B. Northrop was admissible in evidence, and that for the reasons given in Northrop v. Columbian Lumber Company, supra, the judgment in each of the above entitled and numbered cases should be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to award a new trial.

And it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 F. 262, 1912 U.S. App. LEXIS 1376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northrop-v-troup-ca5-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack