Hughes v. Hughes

• Decision Date: 14 December 1910
• Citation: 135 Ga. 468,69 S.E. 818
• Parties: HUGHES v. HUGHES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

69 S.E. 818

135 Ga. 468

HUGHES

v.HUGHES et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 14, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Wills (§ 88^*)—Will or Deed—Construction of Instrument.

An instrument, attested as a deed and duly recorded during the life of the maker, contained the following language: "Now, for the love, affection, regard, and sympathy I have and bear for my affectionate wife, Sarah Hughes, I make, relinquish, and deed all my legal right in and to my homestead survey of pine land upon which I now reside, to her and in her own legal right and benefit." Then followed a description and plat of certain land. Continuing, the language of the instrument was as follows: "And whereas, I, the said Duncan Hughes [the maker], do make this deed and conveyance to my affectionate and beloved wife, the aforesaid Sarah Hughes, under the following conditions, to wit: If my wife, the said Sarah Hughes, should survive me, my desire and wish is for her to retain possession during her lifetime, and after demise it is my desire and wish that our beloved daughter, Margaret Hughes, now remaining with us on the said premises and a member of our household, shall heir the above-described 215 acres, with all the improvements now and which may be hereafter put upon the same, to have and to hold the same in her legal right against the claim of any one or more of the rest of my heirs or relations, and against the claims of any and all other persons whatsoever." Held, that the instrument was properly construed by the trial judge to be a deed. Isler v. Griffin, 134 Ga. 192, 67 S. E. 854, and cases cited.

(a) Accordingly, as the right of the plaintiff below for a recovery of the land in question depended upon the instrument above referred to being construed as a will, and not as a deed, the same having been put in evidence by the defendant, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Wills, Cent. Dig. §§ 208-217; Dec. Dig. § 88.*]

Error from Superior Court, Toombs County; B. T. Rawlings, Judge.

Action by J. D. Hughes, administrator, against Sarah Hughes, and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Williams, Giles & Corbitt, for plaintiff in error.

Hines & Jordan and Jones & Sparks, for defendant in error.

FISH, C. J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes