Anderson v. Jarriel, 24648
| Citation | 224 Ga. 495,162 S.E.2d 322 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24648,24648 |
| Parties | Billy Gene ANDERSON et al. v. Ida Anderson JARRIEL et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Syllabus by the Court
1. While evidence of a parol revocation of a will is inadmissible to prove that the will was revoked, yet such evidence is admissible on the question of mental capacity.
2. This court will not pass upon a ground of objection to evidence not made in the trial court.
3. Where an objection is sustained to testimony sought to be elicited from a party's witness on direct examination, and the trial court is not informed as to the testimony expected, the ruling of the trial court will not be reversed.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict and the trial court did not err in denying the propounders' motion for a directed verdict.
Alvin L. Layne, Lyons, M. O. Strickland, Vidalia, Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, Atlanta, for appellants.
Nat O. Carter, Vidalia, for appellees.
The will of Mrs. Nora Anderson was offered for probate and a caveat filed by eight of her ten children. After judgment for the caveators in the court of ordinary the propounders appealed to the superior court where the jury also found for the caveators and it is from this judgment adverse to them that the propounders now appeal. The sufficiency of the pleadings was not questioned.
1. The first enumeration of error complains of the admission of evidence of an oral statement by the testatrix that she was dissatisfied with the will sought to be probated, and the objection to such testimony was that a will may not be revoked by oral declarations. On the trial of the case the sole ground of caveat was 'monomania,' monomania on the subject of the marriage of her children. At the time the will sought to be probated was executed eight of the testatrix's children were married and two were single. The two single children were left the bulk of the estate, the only other gift being a dinette suite which was expressly given to a daughter who had given it to the testatrix.
While it is well settled that testimony of a parol revocation of a will is inadmissible (see Driver v. Sheffield, 211 Ga. 316, 85 S.E.2d 766 and citations), yet such evidence of dissatisfaction with the will expressed after all the children had married was admissible on the question of mental capacity (Pennington v. Perry, 156 Ga. 103(4), 118 S.E. 710), and the jury was so instructed. The first enumeration of error is without merit.
2. The second enumeration of error complains of the admission into evidence of an undated document bearing the signature of the testatrix wherein she left all her real property to a daughter-in-law but with instruction to see that one of her sons had the home.
"'Although there may be a ground of objection to testimony which would have been good if made, yet if the objection made be not good, it will be overruled.' Cox v. Cody & Co., 75 Ga. 175(1a).' City of Commerce v. Bradford, 94 Ga.App. 284, 291, 94 S.E.2d 160.' Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Macon v. Bell, 100 Ga.App. 438, 441, 111 S.E.2d 734, 738. Accordingly,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clayton County Water Authority v. Harbin
...witness would have made, we hold that this enumeration of error establishes no ground for reversal. See generally Anderson v. Jarriel, 224 Ga. 495(3), 162 S.E.2d 322 (1968); Hyles v. Cockrill, 169 Ga.App. 132(1), 312 S.E.2d 124 3. The condemnor contends that the trial court erred in allowin......
-
Rosequist v. Pratt
...of the expected opinion from her accident reconstruction expert. Consequently, there remains nothing for review. Anderson v. Jarriel, 224 Ga. 495, 496(3), 162 S.E.2d 322. 3. Error is enumerated in the trial court's refusal to admit evidence of Minda B. Rosequist's album of photographs and a......
-
Moon v. Moon
...order to obtain review of a ruling excluding testimony, it must be shown what testimony was expected of the witness. Anderson v. Jarriel, 224 Ga. 495(3), 162 S.E.2d 322. When the trial court announced that the expert would not be permitted to testify, Mrs. Moon did not make a proffer of the......
-
Hyles v. Cockrill
...not properly preserved for appellate consideration. Page v. Brown, 192 Ga. 398, 401(6), 15 S.E.2d 506 (1941); Anderson v. Jarriel, 224 Ga. 495, 496(3), 162 S.E.2d 322 (1968); Cambron v. Canal Ins. Co., 246 Ga. 147, 152(10), 269 S.E.2d 426 2. During the trial, Dr. Galloway testified by way o......