Wash v. Wash

89 S.E. 364, 145 Ga. 405, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 345
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 26, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 364 (Wash v. Wash) 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
Wash v. Wash, 89 S.E. 364, 145 Ga. 405, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 345 (Ga. 1916).

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. Erom a judgment of a court of ordinary, sustaining a demurrer to a petition seeking the revocation of letters of administration previously granted, an appeal will lie to the superior court. Civil Code (1910), § 4999; Teasley v. Vickery, 133 Ga. 721 (66 S. E. 918).

2. A petition seeking to set aside the judgment of a court of ordinary appointing an administrator, and to revoke his letters, alleged that the [406]*406only ground set forth in the application for administration was that the applicant “was requested to administrate upon said estate by the relatives of” the intestate. The petition further alleged “that the appointment of the defendant [the administrator] was null and void, and that the court had no jurisdiction to make said appointment, as the defendant was neither an heir at law, or creditor . . . and no relation, either by blood or marriage, to [the intestate]; neither was he nominated and selected by the heirs or any of them of” the intestate. Held, that the petition was not subject to general demurrer. Civil Code (1910), § 3943; Towner v. Griffin, 115 Ga. 965 (42 S. E. 262). It follows, of course, that an amendment to such petition, which merely amplified its allegations did not make it subject to general demurrer.

June 26, 1916. Appeal. Before Judge George. Irwin superior court. October 22, 1914. II. J. Quincey, E. E. Oxford, and Eaygood & Cutts, for plaintiff. McDonald & Bennett, for defendant.

3. As the petition was brought by a guardian in behalf of his minor wards, alleged to be heirs at law of the intestate, it did not appear from the petition that the action was barred.

■Judgment reversed on the main bill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-bill.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Levine v. Seley
120 S.E.2d 676 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Lefkoff v. Sicro
6 S.E.2d 687 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Young v. Young
2 S.E.2d 622 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Williams v. Cave
186 S.E. 694 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Bruce v. Dunn
184 S.E. 361 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Head v. Scruggs
173 S.E. 113 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Beddingfield v. Old National Bank & Trust Co.
165 S.E. 61 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Morris v. Johnstone
158 S.E. 308 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
McCowen v. Flanders
118 S.E. 351 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Powell v. McKinney
108 S.E. 231 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Wells v. Chambers
111 S.E. 677 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Wash v. Kennedy
99 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Wash v. Dickson
94 S.E. 1009 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1918)
Pierce v. Felts
92 S.E. 541 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E. 364, 145 Ga. 405, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wash-v-wash-ga-1916.