McGahee v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 13 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18717,18717 |
| Citation | 211 Ga. 118,84 S.E.2d 19 |
| Parties | Annie Clotyde McGAHEE v. George PHILLIPS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. On the trial of a caveat filed by the widow and sole heir at law of the testator, evidence as to the financial and physical condition of the testator's mother and sister was properly excluded.
2. Where the jury are as competent as a witness to form an opinion from the will itself as to the mental capacity of the testator, the opinion of a witness as to such matter is inadmissible.
3. Grounds of a motion for new trial which relate to matters not likely to occur on a retrial of the case will not be passed upon. Abbot & Abbot, Louisville, for plaintiff in error.
Marshall L. Fountain, Louisville, for defendant in error.
George Phillips filed a petition in the Court of Ordinary of Jefferson County to probate the last will and testament of A. C. McGahee. To this petition Mrs. Annie Clotyde McGahee, widow and sole heir at law of the deceased, filed her caveat, which as amended charged that the testator at the time of making said pretended will was not of sound and disposing mind and memory, and was suffering from a monomania or delusion, without reason or foundation, of ill will and dislike for his wife, the caveatrix, and also that the will was made as result of the undue influence of Phillips, the propounder. The purported will, after providing for payment of the debts of the testator, bequeathed the entire estate to the caveatrix for and during her natural life, with remainder to Phillips, the propounder. On the hearing in the court of ordinary, the caveat was sustained and probate of the will refused. On appeal to the superior court, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the propounder, and the will was ordered probated. The motion of the caveatrix for a new trial upon the general and special grounds being overruled, she brings the case here by bill of exceptions for review.
1. The first ground of the amended motion complains that the court erred in refusing to permit the caveatrix to introduce in evidence testimony that the testator left surviving him a mother and a sister, and as to their condition as to health and financial circumstances; it being contended that such testimony was relevant on the issues of monomania and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the will, the testator having disposed of the remainder interest in his estate, upon the death of his wife, to the propounder, who was a total stranger, and that it was also relevant on the question of undue influence.
It was not error to reject this testimony, for the reason that the caveat attacked the will as resulting from a monomania of the testator and because of undue influence, and was based on the ground that the monomania was manifested against the testator's wife alone. If probate of the will was refused, the testator's wife alone would receive the entire estate, and his mother and sister would not stand to receive any benefit, and therefore it was not relevant or material to the issue to introduce evidence as to the financial condition or health of the testator's mother and sister. See, in this connection, Deans v. Deans, 171 Ga. 664, 156 S.E. 691, 74 A.L.R. 222; Smith v. Davis, 203 Ga. 175, 45 S.E.2d 609.
2. Ground 4 assigns error on the admission of certain testimony. While Dr. J. J. Pilcher, a witness for the propounder, was on the witness stand, counsel for the propounder handed the witness the purported will, and asked the witness to read it, and then asked him, 'Could that be the will of a man who is sane or rational?'; and after a colloquy between counsel for the caveatrix and the court, the court propounded this question to the witness: 'Doctor, there was a caveat filed in this case where they said that the deceased, Mr. McGahee, was a [monomaniac], that will, does it give the symptoms of a monomaniac?', to which question the witness replied, 'That is a hard question to answer, I think if I was a beneficiary under the will, I wouldn't like it, if I was a relative, as to the wording of the will, I can't see anything that would indicate insanity, from the wording of the will, if that is what you mean.' Counsel for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharfuddin v. Drug Emporium, Inc.
...from such data, the witness may state an opinion after providing the factual basis and reasons for such opinion. McGahee v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 118, 84 S.E.2d 19 (1954); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Blount, 116 Ga.App. 86, 156 S.E.2d 409 (1967). To the extent that a lay witness qualifies tes......
-
In re Estate of Smallman
...would not benefit from a finding of undue influence is properly excluded.” 95 C.J.S. Wills § 392 (2011); see also McGahee v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 118, 84 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1954) (finding that trial court properly denied admission of evidence of mother's and sister's financial circumstances where ......
-
Kilpatrick v. Foster
...as competent as a witness to draw conclusions from facts testified, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible." McGahee v. Phillips, 211 Ga. 118, 120-121, 84 S.E.2d 19 (1954). Accord Barnes v. Thomas, 72 Ga.App. 827(5), 835-837, 35 S.E.2d 364 (1945). This rule applies regardless of whether t......
-
In re Estate of Smallman
...who would not benefit from a finding of undue influence is properly excluded." 95 C.J.S. Wills § 392 (2011); see also McGahee v. Phillips, 84 S.E.2d 19, 21 (Ga. 1954) (finding that trial court properly denied admission of evidence of mother's and sister's financial circumstances where if pr......