Thompson v. Long

Decision Date14 October 1947
Docket Number15973.
CitationThompson v. Long, 202 Ga. 718, 44 S.E.2d 651 (Ga. 1947)
PartiesTHOMPSON v. LONG et al.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

'Where a testator conveys to another specific property devised or bequeathed, and does not afterward become possessed of the same, and the will contains no provision for such contingency, the devise or legacy is adeemed, and such legal result can not be obviated by extrinsic evidence tending to show that the testator did not intend it.'

Statement of facts by JENKINS, Chief Justice:

The administrator cum testamento annexo of the estate of Mrs Belle Loeffler brought a petition in Fulton superior court alleging certain facts as hereinafter set forth, and prayed direction of the court. Answers were filed and interventions allowed and after a hearing on an agreed statement of facts the trial court entered by following order: 'It having been agreed by all the parties that the above stated cause be tried by the court without a jury at the return term and said case coming on to be heard and it appearing to the court that Mrs. Belle Loeffler executed her last will and testament on July 16, 1943, and that in one clause of said will said testatrix bequeathed to Walter Eugene Thompson, her nephew her home, being house and lot, together with all household furnishings and fixtures located at 687 Plum St., N.W., Atlanta, Ga., and it further appearing to the court that after the execution of said will said testatrix sold and conveyed title by warranty deed to said house and lot described as 687 Plum St., N.W., to the Georgia School of Technology; and it further appearing to the court that a check for the sum of $4,977.77 was delivered to said testatrix in payment of the purchase price of said property, and that said check was in her possession at the time of her death, it is decreed by the court that the devise of the testatrix's house and lot located at 687 Plum St., N.W., was adeemed and wholly destroyed by reason of the testatrix's sale thereof, and it is further decreed by the court that said sum of $4,977.77 proceeds from the sale of said property, passes into the residuum of the estate of Mrs. Belle Loeffler. It is further decreed by the court that there is an intestacy as to said sum of $4,977.77 the same being the proceeds from the sale of said house and lot, and that said proceeds be distributed as provided by law in such cases.' Exceptions are to this order.

Wm. S Shelfer, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

T. J....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 cases
  • DuBose v. Box
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1980
    ...cannot be located at his death, it is adeemed and the legatee has no claim on the estate for the value of the legacy. Thompson v. Long, 202 Ga. 718, 44 S.E.2d 651 (1947). A general legacy is one which does not direct delivery of any particular property; it is not limited to any particular a......
  • Pepka v. Branch
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 29, 1973
    ...S.E. 605; Eddington v. Turner, (1944) 27 Del.Ch. 411, 38 A.2d 738; Eisenschenk v. Fowler, (1955 Fla.) 82 So.2d 876; Thompson v. Long, (1947) 202 Ga. 718, 44 S.E.2d 651; In re Wright's Will, (1960) 7 N.Y.2d 365, 197 N.Y.S.2d 711, 165 N.E.2d In re Kamba's Estate, (1938) 230 Wis. 246, 282 N.W.......
  • Collins v. Williams
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1947
    ... ... a fence nearly half way across the lots, and marked out the ... balance of the line; and that so long as Mr. Collins [202 Ga ... 717] lived the fence was maintained by both parties and the ... line recognized as the dividing line between the two ... ...
  • Woodall v. First Nat. Bank of Columbus
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1967
    ...such contingency in his will, and the devisees sought to show that he did not intend an ademption. Of similar import is Thompson v. Long, 202 Ga. 718, 44 S.E.2d 651 (one Justice not participating), which stated: 'Under the foregoing rules of the Code and the authorities above cited, the fac......