Putnal v. Hickman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Putnal v. Hickman

102 S.E. 430, 150 Ga. 69, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 34

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 9, 1920

DocketNo. 1610

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E. 430 (Putnal v. Hickman) 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

Putnal v. Hickman, 102 S.E. 430, 150 Ga. 69, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 34 (Ga. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. On the trial of the issue as to whether a widow had elected to take a child’s part in the estate of her deceased husband, the court did not err in refusing to admit in evidence the record of the court of ordinary, showing the appointment of a temporary administrator of the estate, the appointment of appraisers, and the return of the appraisers; the attempt to set aside the estate as a year’s support being void because no application for a year’s support had ever been made. See Putnal v. Hickman, 148 Ga. 621 (97 S. E. 668).

2. The undisputed evidence showed that the widow sold the entire interest of her deceased husband in the land within the time allowed her to elect between a child’s part and a dower. There- is no evidence showing or tending to show that she did not intend this conveyance to operate as an election to take a child’s part. The court therefore did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, who was the only child of the deceased, for one half undivided interest in the land and one half interest in the mesne profits. Brown v. Cantrell, 62 Ga. 257.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J,, absent on account of sickness. L. L. Moore and Branch & Snow, for plaintiff. J. S. Ridgdül, W. A. Covington, and Parker & Gibson, for defendant-.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. On the trial of the issue as to whether a widow had elected to take a child’s part in the estate of her deceased husband, the court did not err in refusing to admit in evidence the record of the court of ordinary, showing the appointment of a temporary administrator of the estate, the appointment of appraisers, and the return of the appraisers; the attempt to set aside the estate as a year’s support being void because no application for a year’s support had ever been made. See Putnal v. Hickman, 148 Ga. 621 (97 S. E. 668).

2. The undisputed evidence showed that the widow sold the entire interest of her deceased husband in the land within the time allowed her to elect between a child’s part and a dower. There- is no evidence showing or tending to show that she did not intend this conveyance to operate as an election to take a child’s part. The court therefore did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, who was the only child of the deceased, for one half undivided interest in the land and one half interest in the mesne profits. Brown v. Cantrell, 62 Ga. 257.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, P. J,, absent on account of sickness. L. L. Moore and Branch & Snow, for plaintiff. J. S. Ridgdül, W. A. Covington, and Parker & Gibson, for defendant-.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 430, 150 Ga. 69, 1920 Ga. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnal-v-hickman-ga-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack