Wells v. Chambers

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wells v. Chambers

111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 429, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 478

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1921

Docket12914

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E. 677 (Wells v. Chambers) 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

Wells v. Chambers, 111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 429, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 478 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Chambers and others filed a petition in the court of ordinary to remove Wells as administrator and revoke his letters of administration. The court of ordinary dismissed the petition and Chambers appealed the case to the superior court. The judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to dismiss the appeal on the ground that certiorari from the decision of the court of ordinary was the only remedy. Civil Code (1910), § 4999; Wash v. Wash, 145 Ga. 405 (1) (89 S. E. 364); Pierce v. Felts, 146 Ga. 809 (92 S. E. 541).

2. After a careful consideration of the record in this case, this court is of the opinion that there was evidence to sustain the verdict in favor of the petitioners; that there was no error in the ad[430]*430mission of the evidence objected to; and that the charge of the court was full and clear and was not erroneous for any reason assigned. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. Chambers and others filed a petition in the court of ordinary to remove Wells as administrator and revoke his letters of administration. The court of ordinary dismissed the petition and Chambers appealed the case to the superior court. The judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to dismiss the appeal on the ground that certiorari from the decision of the court of ordinary was the only remedy. Civil Code (1910), § 4999; Wash v. Wash, 145 Ga. 405 (1) (89 S. E. 364); Pierce v. Felts, 146 Ga. 809 (92 S. E. 541).

2. After a careful consideration of the record in this case, this court is of the opinion that there was evidence to sustain the verdict in favor of the petitioners; that there was no error in the ad[430]*430mission of the evidence objected to; and that the charge of the court was full and clear and was not erroneous for any reason assigned. The court did not err in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 677, 28 Ga. App. 429, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-chambers-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack