Ray v. Kinchen

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ray v. Kinchen

144 S.E. 317, 166 Ga. 788, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 403

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 17, 1928

DocketNo. 6667

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 144 S.E. 317 (Ray v. Kinchen) 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

Ray v. Kinchen, 144 S.E. 317, 166 Ga. 788, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 403 (Ga. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

1. The right of plaintiff to the relief sought is based upon her claim of “virtual” adoption. An oral contract of adoption must be definite and specific, based upon a sufficient legal consideration, and the proof of such contract must be clear, strong and satisfactory. Lansdell v. Lansdell, 144 Ga. 571 (87 S. E. 782); Pair v. Pair, 147 Ga. 754 (95 S. E. 295) ; Bell v. Elrod, 150 Ga. 709 (105 S. E. 241). And see Crum v. Fendig, 157 Ga. 528, 530 (121 S. E. 825) ; Ezell v. Mobley, 160 Ga. 872, 876 (129 S. E. 532).

2. On the issue of administration of the estate in a court of equity, the evidence would not support a verdict for the plaintiff. No facts were shown authorizing a court of equity to interfere with the court of ordinary, as prayed.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. It is at least doubtful whether under the evidence a different verdict would have been authorized. The newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and was not of such character as would probably produce a different result on another trial. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices eoneur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff. W. S. Mann, for defendants.

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

Gilbert, J.

1. The right of plaintiff to the relief sought is based upon her claim of “virtual” adoption. An oral contract of adoption must be definite and specific, based upon a sufficient legal consideration, and the proof of such contract must be clear, strong and satisfactory. Lansdell v. Lansdell, 144 Ga. 571 (87 S. E. 782); Pair v. Pair, 147 Ga. 754 (95 S. E. 295) ; Bell v. Elrod, 150 Ga. 709 (105 S. E. 241). And see Crum v. Fendig, 157 Ga. 528, 530 (121 S. E. 825) ; Ezell v. Mobley, 160 Ga. 872, 876 (129 S. E. 532).

2. On the issue of administration of the estate in a court of equity, the evidence would not support a verdict for the plaintiff. No facts were shown authorizing a court of equity to interfere with the court of ordinary, as prayed.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict. It is at least doubtful whether under the evidence a different verdict would have been authorized. The newly discovered evidence was cumulative, and was not of such character as would probably produce a different result on another trial. None of the grounds of the motion for new trial show error.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices eoneur. William B. Kent, for plaintiff. W. S. Mann, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 317, 166 Ga. 788, 1928 Ga. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-kinchen-ga-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack