Huggins v. Huggins

• Decision Date: 09 February 1884
• Citation: 71 Ga. 66
• Parties: HUGGINS v. HUGGINS, executor, et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

71 Ga. 66

HUGGINS v. HUGGINS, executor, et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

February 9, 1884

September Term, 1883.

1. The declarations of a party in possession in favor of his own title are admissible to prove adverse possession.

2. In a contest concerning the title to land between an executor and certain persons claiming to the donees of the testator under a verbal gift, accompanied by delivery of possession and the erection of valuable improvements, one of the persons so claiming was incompetent to testify in his own favor, either as to the entire case or as to the character of the improvements made on the land since the testator's death.

3. It is only in cases of intestacy that parties can claim advancements or be compelled to account for them.

Evidence. Title. Witness. Estates. Advancements. Before Judge HARRIS. Carroll county. At Chambers. May 21, 1883.

Reported in the decision.

R. S BURCH, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

ORLANDO MCLENDON; P. H. BREWSTER; W. A. TURNER, for defendants.

HALL Justice.

The executor of Asa Huggins offered for sale a certain parcel of land, which was claimed by the widow of testator's deceased son for herself and minor children, to whom she alleged that it had been given by testator in his lifetime that he had bought it expressly as a home for them; had put them in possession, in pursuance of his intention, and they had made valuable improvements thereon, under the belief that they were the owners of the same, and which they would not have made as tenants at will. The gift was verbal; the testator paid for the land, and when he did so took title to himself.

Before this claim case was tried, the executor filed a bill against all the legatees of testator, including the claimants, in which he asked a construction of the will, and also the direction of court as to the distribution of the estate which he represented. On the trial of the bill, several issues of fact touching this claim were submitted to the jury, all of which were found against claimants. A motion was made for a new trial on various grounds, and was overruled. It is necessary to consider only two errors alleged therein and now insisted on. The verdict as to the other grounds of the motion was fully sustained by the evidence.

1. It is urged that the court erred in admitting the sayings of the donor, while he was in possession of the land, setting up title therein to himself and denying the...