Brooks v. Brooks, 12228.
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | GRICE |
| Citation | 195 S.E. 869,185 Ga. 549 |
| Parties | BROOKS. v. BROOKS et al. |
| Docket Number | No. 12228.,12228. |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1937 |
BROOKS.
v.
BROOKS et al.
No. 12228.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb. 19, 1937.
The general grounds of the motion for new trial are not argued in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error, and will not be considered. There is no merit in the special grounds.
Error from Superior Court, Walton County; Blanton Fortson, Judge.
Equitable proceeding in the matter of the estate of Savannah Brooks deceased, by A. M. Brooks and another, against Alice Brooks and others. To review an adverse judgment, the named defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
John I. Kelley, of Atlanta, and P. K. Burns, of Decatur, for plaintiff in error.
Roberts & Roberts, of Monroe, John 1. Kelley, of Atlanta, and P. K. Burns, of Decatur, for defendants in error.
GRICE, Justice.
This is the third appearance of this controversy in our courts of review. For the other decisions, see Brooks v. Brooks, 54 Ga.App. 276, 187 S.E. 687, and Brooks v. Brooks, 184 Ga. 872, 193 S.E. 893. For convenience, the litigation which culminated in the decision reported in 54 Ga.App. will hereinafter be referred to as "Case No. 1"; the branch of the controversy which appears in 184 Ga. will be designated as "Case No. 2"; while the matters covered by the instant writ of error will be referred to as "Case No. 3."
Savannah Brooks died intestate, leaving four heirs, A. M. Brooks, Mary Brooks, Alice Brooks, and Helen Gross. Mary Brooks was appointed her administratrix. She owned, among other assets, four certificates of deposit in the Loganville Banking Company. One of these stood in the name of Savannah Brooks or Mary Brooks; a second was in the name of Savannah Brooks or Alice Brooks; a third had been originally issued in the name of Savannah Brooks or M. M. Brooks, but was later changed to Savannah Brooks or Mary Brooks or Alice Brooks; the fourth was in the name of Savannah Brooks or Mary Brooks as guardian of Helen Gross. Before Savannah Brooks' death the Loganville Banking Company went into liquidation, and certain of its assets were exchanged for the certificates. It follows that
[195 S.E. 870]the persons in whom were the titles to these certificates should have the assets they represent.
Case No. 1 originated in the ordinary's court on a citation for settlement brought by A. M. Brooks against Mary Brooks, the administratrix. C. L. Gross, as guardian of Helen Gross, joined in the citation. A judgment was entered, and from this an appeal was taken to the superior court by Mary Brooks, and in that court an investigation de novo was had before a jury. The main controversy there was whether the certificates of deposit belonged to the estate of Savannah Brooks. Mary, the administratrix, contended that they had been the subject-matter of gifts by Savannah Brooks to her daughters and granddaughter, and that consequently it was no part of her duty as administratrix to administer them. At the trial, specific questions were propounded to the jury, and the effect of their finding was that no gifts had taken place. A judgment followed, as of course, in favor of the heirs, for separate sums, against Mary Brooks, as administratrix. Mary-Brooks moved for a new trial, and on this being refused she took the case to the Court of Appeals, presenting two main questions: (1) Had the lower court erred in approving the verdict that no gift had taken place?
(2) Had the court erred in holding that she, Mary, was not a competent witness to testify as to communications with her mother on the subject of the alleged gifts? The Court of Appeals decided that there had been no error of the lower court as to either point. In the case in the Court of Appeals, Mary Brooks as administratrix was the sole plaintiff in error. The defendants in error were A. M. Brooks and C. L. Gross, guardian.
Case No. 2 arose from an equitable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rite-Aid Corp. v. Davis, No. A06A0682.
...A court "should never by construction add to, take from, or vary the meaning of unambiguous words in the statute." Brooks v. Brooks, 185 Ga. 549, 554, 195 S.E. 869 (1938). Where there is no ambiguity, as in this case, our job is simply to look at the words the legislature used, not to inter......
-
Brooks v. Brooks, 12228.
...195 S.E. 869 185 Ga. 549 BROOKS v. BROOKS et al. No. 12228.Supreme Court of GeorgiaFebruary 19, Error from Superior Court, Walton County; Blanton Fortson, Judge. Equitable proceeding in the matter of the estate of Savannah Brooks deceased, by A. M. Brooks and another, against Alice Brooks a......