Ingram v. Rooks
| Decision Date | 06 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23264,23264 |
| Citation | 221 Ga. 701,146 S.E.2d 743 |
| Parties | Mrs. Lonnie Cox INGRAM v. Mrs. Miriam Bailey ROOKS, Executrix, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Cook & Pleger, Athens, Wiggins & Smith, M. T. Simmons, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Carter & Carter, Hartwell, Richard Phillips, Ludowici, Howell C. Erwin, Jr., Athens, for appellees. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mrs. Miriam Bailey Rooks filed a petition in the Court of Ordinary of Hart County to probate in solemn form the will of Mrs. Lourene Cox Johnson. Mrs. Mlonnie Cox Ingram as an heir at law of Mrs. Johnson and as a legatee under her will acknowledged service of the petition and assented to probate of the will in solemn form. The will was probated on August 3, 1964, and on July 29, 1965, Mrs. Ingram filed a petition in the same court to cancel and declare void her acknowledgment of service and to set aside the probate judgment, alleging as her ground therefor that she was induced to acknowledge service of such petition and assent to the probate of Mrs. Johnson's will by the petitioner reading to her a paper which she falsely represented to be the last will and testament of Mrs. Johnson but which was in fact a different will from the one afterwards probated. Mrs. Rooks, as executrix of Mrs. Johnson's estate, demurred to Mrs. Ingram's petition on the ground that it stated no cause of action for the relief sought. Her demurrer was overruled by the ordinary. Mrs. Rooks answered the petition and denied that she had by any act misled Mrs. Ingram or made any false representations to her concerning Mrs. Johnson's will. On the trial and after the parties had introduced their evidence, the ordinary denied all of the relief petitioner sought. Mrs. Ingram appealed the case to the Superior Court of Hart County. When the case reached that court, the judge sustained Mrs. Rooks' demurrer and dismissed the case. Mrs. Ingram appealed that judgment to this court for review. Held:
1. Mrs. Ingram's appeal from the Court of Ordinary to the Superior Court of Hart County brought the whole record to that court for a de novo investigation. Code § 6-501. This being true, the judge could rule on the demurrer filed by Mrs. Rooks in the court of ordinary unfettered by the ordinary's judgment overruling it. Moody v. Moody, 29 Ga. 519(1); Paxton v. Berrien County, 117 Ga. 891(2), 45 S.E. 266; Hartley v. Holwell, 202 Ga. 724, 726, 44 S.E.2d 896.
2. Mrs. Ingram's petition to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Cates, 41795
...does not exist prior to the contract or legal relationship creating it, unless it exists for other reasons. See, Ingram v. Rooks, 221 Ga. 701, 702(2), 146 S.E.2d 743. Here there are not other reasons recognized by statute or by any court decision of this State. We have found no such decisio......
-
Dismer v. Luke, A97A0892
...the probate court's judgment finding the caveat meritless and assessing fees was a final, appealable judgment. In Ingram v. Rooks, 221 Ga. 701, 146 S.E.2d 743 (1966), an executrix filed a petition to probate a will in solemn form. One of the heirs first assented to the petition, but later s......
-
Daniel v. Lipscomb, A96A1993
...to his qualification by the court as executor. See Charles v. Simmons, 215 Ga. 794, 795-796, 113 S.E.2d 604 (1960); Ingram v. Rooks, 221 Ga. 701, 702, 146 S.E.2d 743 (1966). This is so even where, as here, the propounder is named as executor in the will itself. See Simmons, supra at 795-796......
-
Vinson v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank of Valdosta
...done so when ample time was available, he is not entitled to the relief sought in this court. Code §§ 37-212; 113-610; Ingram v. Rooks, 221 Ga. 701, 146 S.E.2d 743. Judgment All the Justices concur. ...