Sutherland v. Barker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sutherland v. Barker

132 S.E. 119, 35 Ga. App. 42, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 546

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1926

Docket16613

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 119 (Sutherland v. Barker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sutherland v. Barker, 132 S.E. 119, 35 Ga. App. 42, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. In a contest for the appointment of administrators with the will annexed of a deceased testator, between the applicants selected by the legally appointed guardian of the adopted child of the decedent, which foster child is a beneficiary under the will, and another, as the father of the minor, the court did not err in dismissing the caveat and objection of the father, on the ground that he was a stranger to the proceeding. The superior court, on appeal, having passed an order merely dismissing the caveat and objection of the [43]*43father as appellant, and not having dismissed the appeal, direction is given that the appeal be entered as dismissed, so as to render final the order of appointment as made in the court of ordinary.

Decided February 13, 1926. Walter B. Brown, W. K. Dial, for plaintiff in error. Slaton & Hopkins, contra.

2. Since the appellant could not in any event have sustained his appeal, it is immaterial that the court overruled his motion for a continuance of the case in the superior court. See Sutherland v. Donovan, 34 Ga. App. 643 (130 S. E. 688); Sutherland v. Barker, 161 Ga. 465 (131 S. E. 53).

Judgment affirmed, icith direction.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. In a contest for the appointment of administrators with the will annexed of a deceased testator, between the applicants selected by the legally appointed guardian of the adopted child of the decedent, which foster child is a beneficiary under the will, and another, as the father of the minor, the court did not err in dismissing the caveat and objection of the father, on the ground that he was a stranger to the proceeding. The superior court, on appeal, having passed an order merely dismissing the caveat and objection of the [43]*43father as appellant, and not having dismissed the appeal, direction is given that the appeal be entered as dismissed, so as to render final the order of appointment as made in the court of ordinary.

Decided February 13, 1926. Walter B. Brown, W. K. Dial, for plaintiff in error. Slaton & Hopkins, contra.

2. Since the appellant could not in any event have sustained his appeal, it is immaterial that the court overruled his motion for a continuance of the case in the superior court. See Sutherland v. Donovan, 34 Ga. App. 643 (130 S. E. 688); Sutherland v. Barker, 161 Ga. 465 (131 S. E. 53).

Judgment affirmed, icith direction.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 119, 35 Ga. App. 42, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutherland-v-barker-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack