Cook v. Sheats, 23383
| Decision Date | 07 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23383,23383 |
| Citation | 148 S.E.2d 382,222 Ga. 70 |
| Parties | Robert N. COOK v. Harold SHEATS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
2. There was evidence of insanity of the testator which raised an issue of fact as to his testamentary capacity and the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the propounder.
3. The evidence was insufficient to make an issue as to whether the testator was unaware of the existence of certain of his relatives.
4. Where there is an issue of fact as to the testamentary capacity of the maker of a will, evidence showing the source from which property disposed of by the will came into the decedent's possession is relevant and material to show whether the provisions of the will are just and reasonable, and accord with the state of the testator's family relations.
Tom Dillon, Atlanta, for appellant.
Sheats, Parker & Webb, John Tye Ferguson, Atlanta, for appellee.
Harold Sheats, as executor of the will of DeForest King, also known as D. King and John May, sought to probate the will in solemn form in the Court of Ordinary of Fulton County. The testator died a resident of the State of California but owned real property in Fulton County. Robert N. Cook filed a caveat to the will, which was overruled by the Ordinary of Fulton County. On appeal to the Superior Court of Fulton County, the trial judge directed a verdict for the propounder, and the appeal in this court is from that judgment.
The enumeration of errors asserts that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the propounder because there was evidence of general insanity and monoamania of the testator. It is further asserted that it was error to exclude evidence as to how the property devised in the will came into the ownership and possession of the testator.
1. The propounder has filed a motion in this court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues are moot because the will of the decedent has been admitted to probate in the State of California. The judgment of the Superior Court of Fulton County was entered on October 13, 1965. The will was admitted to probate in the State of California on November 29, 1965. The caveator in response to the propounder's motion to dismiss has shown that a petition has been filed in the State of California to revoke the probate of the will in that State.
The will was not offered for probate in this State on an exemplification of the probate proceedings in California under Ga.L.1959, pp. 136, 138 (Code Ann. § 113-703), but was offered in the same manner as wills of residents of this State under Code § 113-702. Since it appears that the probate in California was subsequent to the judgment of the Superior Court of Fulton County, and that the issue as to testamentary capacity has not been decided in the State of California, the order of probate in Calfornia would not render the present case moot. The motion to dismiss is denied.
2. The will of D. King which was executed on July 28, 1953, devised and bequeathed all of his property, after the payment of debts, to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. There was ample evidence for the propounder by the subscribing witnesses and others to authorize a finding that the testator was mentally competent to make a will. It is unnecessary to narrate any of this testimony since the question for decision by this court is whether there was any evidence requiring the submission to the jury of the question of mental competency of the testator.
Charles Millard Pitts, a former tenant of the testator, testified that he moved onto the testator's property in 1952 or 1953. He related that: He had seen the testator three or four different times, while the witness was talking to him on some serious matter, stop the conversation, commence jumping up and down, clapping his hands together, and laughing like something was amusing. The testator put a cable across the driveway of his property on which the witness lived, and gave the witness orders not to allow anyone to come on the property even for business purpose. He would not permit the witness to cut the grass and weeds, and said that he wanted the place to grow up and look like a jungle. He stored new and unused tools of a value of three or four hundred dollars and a new refrigerator in a locked room of the house rented by the witness, and never used them from the date of 1952 or 1953 until his death.
Robert N. Cook, the caveator, testified that on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. Kenny
...the provisions of the will are just and reasonable, and accord with the state of the testator's family relations. Cook v. Sheats, 222 Ga. 70, 73, 148 S.E.2d 382 (1966). The record shows that the probate court received testimony that the real property involved was purchased by the testatrix ......
-
Hammett v. Reynolds
...it would allow evidence that testatrix acquired the property through her mother's estate. Murphy v. Murphy, supra; Cook v. Sheats, 222 Ga. 70(4), 148 S.E.2d 382 (1966). Because the widower's testimony as to his involvement as her attorney was both irrelevant and prejudicial in this particul......
-
Mansour v. McWilliams
...Elec. Membership Corp., 155 Ga.App. 481, 270 S.E.2d 921 (1980), or even that the evidence preponderate in his favor. Cook v. Sheats, 222 Ga. 70, 148 S.E.2d 382 (1966); Findley v. McDaniel, 158 Ga.App. 445, 280 S.E.2d 858 (1981). A verdict should not be directed unless there is no genuine is......
-
Helton v. Zellmer, 32153
...... See Cook v. Sheats, 222 Ga. 70, 148 S.E.2d 382 (1966); Ware v. Hill, 209 Ga. 214, 71 S.E.2d 630 (1952). ......