Williamson v. Williamson

168 S.E. 256, 176 Ga. 510, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 212
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 21, 1933
DocketNo. 8863
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 256 (Williamson v. Williamson) 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
Williamson v. Williamson, 168 S.E. 256, 176 Ga. 510, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 212 (Ga. 1933).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. Under the Civil Code, § 5858, par. 1, in an action of complaint for land, the opposite party to the grantee of a deed from a deceased person is not competent to testify in his own behalf to conversations and transactions with such deceased person affecting adversely the title conveyed by the deed. Hendrick v. Daniel, 119 Ga. 358 (46 S. E. 438). Accordingly, in an action of complaint for land, the defendant J. Gould Williamson, being the immediate grantee of A. G. Williamson since deceased (the alleged common grantor), J. F. Williamson, one of the plaintiffs, was incompetent to testify in his own behalf as to conversations and transactions with A. G. Williamson, since deceased, tending to show the execution and delivery of a prior deed by A. G. Williamson to a different person under whom the plaintiffs claim as sole heirs at law.

2. When the defendant in a civil case introduces no evidence, he is entitled [511]*511to the opening and conclusion of the argument. Newsome v. Harrell, 146 Ga. 139 (2) (90 S. E. 855) ; Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28 (5) (42 S. E. 258) ; Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559 (5) (89 S. E. 486). The ruling in Ramsey v. Ramsey. 174 Ga. 605 (5) (163 S. E. 193), applies “where both parties introduce evidence.” Simmons v. Brannen, 155 Ga. 494, 496 (117 S. E. 318), cited in the Ramsey case.

No. 8863. February 21, 1933. Lawson & Ware and Russell Ross, for plaintiffs. J. H. Milner and Will Ed Smith, for defendant.

3. The verdict for the defendant was authorized by the evidence, and the judge did not err in overruling the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hogsed v. Hogsed
196 S.E.2d 428 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1973)
Canada Dry Bottling Co. v. Campbell
143 S.E.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Fuller v. Fuller
97 S.E.2d 306 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1957)
Jones v. Chambers
95 S.E.2d 335 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Johnson v. Bogdis
67 S.E.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Smith v. Smith
2 S.E.2d 417 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Auto Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Campbell
192 S.E. 640 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Martin v. Martin
180 S.E. 851 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.E. 256, 176 Ga. 510, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-williamson-ga-1933.