Dye v. Dye
| Decision Date | 21 July 1899 |
| Parties | DYE et al. v. DYE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. A paper attested by three witnesses, and, as a whole, manifestly testamentary in character, and which also contains a right of revocation by the maker, should, though having in some respects the form of a deed, be treated as a will. In this connection, see Barnes v. Stephens (Ga.) 33 S.E. 399.
2. The trial judge did not err in holding that the papers involved in the present case were testamentary in character, and not deeds, but ought not to have ordered them to be canceled. Direction is given that so much of the judgment excepted to as requires the cancellation of these papers be stricken therefrom.
Error from superior court, Warren county; S. Reese, Judge.
Application by T. P. C. Dye for the probate of a will. From a judgment admitting the same to probate, E. P. Dye and others bring error. Affirmed, with direction.
E. T. Shurley and E. P. Davis, for plaintiffs in error.
Thos. E. Watson, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed, with direction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cosnahan v. Johnston
-
Cosnahan v. Johnston
...by leaving a copy of the motion at the house of Johnston, who had represented him as his attorney in the claim case. The ordinary granted [33 S.E. 848.] the motion to re-establish. whereupon Cosnahan brought an action of ejectment against Johnston to recover the land. Johnston, in defense, ......
- Dye v. Dye