Russell v. Ware

Supreme Court of Georgia

Russell v. Ware

139 S.E.2d 310, 220 Ga. 387, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 561

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 5, 1964

Docket22647

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 S.E.2d 310 (Russell v. Ware) 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

Russell v. Ware, 139 S.E.2d 310, 220 Ga. 387, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 561 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. It is never error to allow evidence to be introduced over objections that it is irrelevant and prejudicial, where as here, the evidence was in proof of allegations of the pleadings which had not been demurred to. Beasley v. Burt, 201 Ga. 144 (39 SE2d 51), Adler v. Adler, [388]*388207 Ga. 394 (61 SE2d 824), and cases cited in these cases. Nor was it error to charge the jury to consider such evidence and that they would be authorized to make a finding based thereon. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Fowler, 77 Ga. App. 206 (47 SE2d 874); Martin v. Nichols, 127 Ga. 705 (56 SE 995); Savannah Guano Co. v. Christian, 159 Ga. 600 (3) (126 SE 376). As to any proper remedy in such a situation see Fleming v. Roberts, 114 Ga. 634 (40 SE 792).

Submitted September 15, 1964 Decided November 5, 1964. Jack G. Tarpley, for plaintiff in error. William Butt, Herman Spence, contra.

2. While the customs and practices so alleged and proved might not be enough to thwart the law which requires that all assets of a deceased are a part of his estate, and if intestate, the administrator is entitled to receive and distribute them in accord with law, yet in the situation of this case, such a law would not authorize a reversal because of the allowance of the evidence as to customs and practices and the charge thereon. See Code §§ 110-702, 110-704; Evans v. Mills, 119 Ga. 448 (1) (46 SE 674); Jones v. Harris, 151 Ga. 129 (3) (106 SE 555); Deck v. Shields, 195 Ga. 697 (25 SE2d 514).

3. The evidence amply supported the verdict, and the general grounds of the motion are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. It is never error to allow evidence to be introduced over objections that it is irrelevant and prejudicial, where as here, the evidence was in proof of allegations of the pleadings which had not been demurred to. Beasley v. Burt, 201 Ga. 144 (39 SE2d 51), Adler v. Adler, [388]*388207 Ga. 394 (61 SE2d 824), and cases cited in these cases. Nor was it error to charge the jury to consider such evidence and that they would be authorized to make a finding based thereon. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Fowler, 77 Ga. App. 206 (47 SE2d 874); Martin v. Nichols, 127 Ga. 705 (56 SE 995); Savannah Guano Co. v. Christian, 159 Ga. 600 (3) (126 SE 376). As to any proper remedy in such a situation see Fleming v. Roberts, 114 Ga. 634 (40 SE 792).

Submitted September 15, 1964 Decided November 5, 1964. Jack G. Tarpley, for plaintiff in error. William Butt, Herman Spence, contra.

2. While the customs and practices so alleged and proved might not be enough to thwart the law which requires that all assets of a deceased are a part of his estate, and if intestate, the administrator is entitled to receive and distribute them in accord with law, yet in the situation of this case, such a law would not authorize a reversal because of the allowance of the evidence as to customs and practices and the charge thereon. See Code §§ 110-702, 110-704; Evans v. Mills, 119 Ga. 448 (1) (46 SE 674); Jones v. Harris, 151 Ga. 129 (3) (106 SE 555); Deck v. Shields, 195 Ga. 697 (25 SE2d 514).

3. The evidence amply supported the verdict, and the general grounds of the motion are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E.2d 310, 220 Ga. 387, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-ware-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack