Flowers v. Flowers
| Decision Date | 20 November 1893 |
| Citation | 18 S.E. 1006,92 Ga. 688 |
| Parties | FLOWERS v. FLOWERS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where commissioners appointed upon the application of a widow for dower have made their return, assigning dower in certain land, and a traverse is entered by a person who claims the land as his own, and sets up that the husband of the widow was not seised and possessed of it at the time of his death this person, although he is the executor of the husband's estate, is not incompetent, under the evidence act of 1889 to testify on the trial of the issue thus formed, as a witness in his own behalf, as to transactions and communications with the deceased touching a sale and conveyance of the land by the latter to himself, the traverse being made in his own interest, and not in behalf of his testator's estate. In such case the proceeding is not a suit instituted or defended by the personal representative of the deceased, within the meaning of that act. The estate would not be bound by a judgment rendered in favor of the claimant, the estate being unrepresented as against his alleged title.
2. Inasmuch as the nature and extent of the right of dower was not involved in the litigation, any error of the court in charging on that abstract subject was immaterial.
3. It is error, in charging the jury, to direct their attention specially to the relevancy of a particular portion of the testimony favorable to one side, no special reference being made to any of the evidence favorable to the other side. For this reason the court erred in charging as follows:
4. The requests to charge, in so far as they are legal, were covered by the charge of the court; and there was no error in the charge except as stated in the preceding headnote.
Error from superior court, De Kalb county; R. H. Clark, Judge.
To the report of commissioners appointed to assign dower to Catherine B. Flowers, George N. Flowers filed a traverse. From the judgment rendered, the executor brings error. Reversed.
Candler & Thomson, for plaintiff in error.
John A Wimpy and W. J. Speairs, for defendant in error.
1. The widow of John Y. Flowers applied for dower, and the commissioners appointed to assign dower made their report assigning to the applicant certain lands. A traverse was entered by George N. Flowers, upon the ground that John Y. was not seised and possessed, at the time of his death, of the land out of which the dower had been assigned, but that he (George N.) was the owner. George N. claimed the land under a deed made to him by John Y. in August, 1875, the consideration expressed in the deed being $5,500. Upon the trial of the issue thus made, George N. offered to testify as to the payment to John Y. of the consideration recited in the deed, and of a note made in connection therewith, and as to what was the real transaction evidenced by the deed and the note; but the court, on objection thereto, declined to allow the witness to testify as to these matters, holding that, George N. being a party to the suit, and John Y. being dead, the former was an incompetent witness as to transactions with the latter. We think the court erred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Newton, 21268
...are without merit. See Code, Ann. §§ 38-308 and 38-309; also Bowman v. Owens, 133 Ga. 49(6), 65 S.E. 156. Nothing ruled in Flowers v. Flowers, 92 Ga. 688, 18 S.E. 1006, which is relied on by the plaintiffs in error, requires a ruling different from the one here 6. Movants allege that the fo......
-
Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet
... ... the other evidence in the case, might tend to establish the ... contention of the party offering such evidence.' See ... Flowers v. Flowers, 92 Ga. 688(3), 691, 18 S.E ... 1006; Georgia Railway & Power Co. v. Head, 155 Ga. 337(3, ... 6), 116 S.E. 620. The criticism of the ... ...
-
Neely v. Carter
...his own favor as to transactions or communications with such de-ceased person. According to the decision of this court in Flowers v. Flowers, 92 Ga. 688, 18 S. E. 1006, and in Gunn v. Pettygrew, 93 Ga. 327, 20 S. E. 328, in order, under the above-cited paragraph, to exclude a party to a cas......
-
Neely v. Carter
...his own favor as to transactions or communications with such deceased person. According to the decision of this court in Flowers v. Flowers, 92 Ga. 688, 18 S.E. 1006, and Gunn v. Pettygrew, 93 Ga. 327, 20 S.E. 328, in order, under the above-cited paragraph, to exclude a party to a case from......