Oetjen v. Oetjen

42 S.E. 387, 115 Ga. 1004, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 678
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 22, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 387 (Oetjen v. Oetjen) 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
Oetjen v. Oetjen, 42 S.E. 387, 115 Ga. 1004, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 678 (Ga. 1902).

Opinion

Cobb, J.

In the case of Howard v. Hunter, 115 Ga. 357, this court held that in order for a written entry upon a will to operate .as a revocation thereof, it must have either been attested in the same manner and with the same formality as is required for the execution of a will, or the entry must have been written upon the will in such a manner as to obliterate or cancel some material portion of the will. The facts of the present case are almost identical with those of the case just referred to; the only difference being that one word of the entry in the present case was written across one word in the last line of the will. This word was in a sentence which stated merely that a word in the will had been changed before signing. It thus appears that no material portion of the will was obliterated, even if the mere writing across a word in a will, leaving the same perfectly legible, could be said to be an oblitera[1005]*1005tion or cancellation within the meaning of the statute which provides that a will may be revoked by cancelling some material portion thereof. The case is upon its facts absolutely controlled by the decision in Howard v. Hunter.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis,. J., absent

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

Related

Castens v. Murray
50 S.E. 131 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E. 387, 115 Ga. 1004, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oetjen-v-oetjen-ga-1902.