Waldrep v. Goodwin
| Decision Date | 06 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 26438,26438 |
| Citation | 181 S.E.2d 837,227 Ga. 560 |
| Parties | Hubert C. WALDREP v. Buena W. GOODWIN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jimmy W. Jones, Jones & Wilbur, Marietta, for appellant.
Howe & Murphy, D. B. Howe, Harold Murphy, Tallapoosa, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The issue here is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict to probate the will of Lemma Waldrep. Appellant, caveator in the trial court, is the husband of the testatrix. Propounder is the testatrix' only living child to whom the entire estate is devised except as stated in item III, Held:
Appellant contends that the evidence raised questions of fact as to testamentary capacity, undue influence and fraud which should have been submitted to a jury.
The evidence shows that two years before her death the testator while visiting her sister in Atlanta had an attorney draft her will. Thereafter she returned to her home in Tallapoosa where the will was executed and witnessed at an insurance office where testatrix was known. She then delivered it to her sister to keep until her death. All witnesses, including the subscribing witnesses and the attorney who drew the will, testified that the testatrix was completely competent. Caveator testified that about the time the will was executed his wife had an operation. He was working and living in Birmingham, Ala. He returned to Georgia and visited his wife in the hospital. He stated she seemed depressed and said some things which didn't 'make sense' although he could not recall anything specifically. In his opinion his wife was not of sound mind at that time.
The testatrix and caveator were married in 1918, divorced in 1949, and remarried in 1954. Caveator worked and lived away from Tallapoosa a majority of the time and would return home on occasions to visit his wife. The evidence shows he had women companions in other cities, most of whom his wife 'knew about.' The evidence also shows that the testatrix lived next door to her daughter for many years, the daughter was not particularly compatible with her father, and the testatrix signed the will not on the line provided for signature but on the blank line provided for her name in the attestation clause.
We find no error. The caveator's testimony that the testatrix, while in the hospital two years before her death, and after an operation, was depressed and said some things which did not make sense to him, none of which he could recall, and that she was not of sound mind is insufficient to raise a question of testamentary capacity here. The will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sauls v. Estate of Avant
...Hopkins, 197 Ga. 247, 251, 29 S.E.2d 42." Morgan v. Ivey, 222 Ga. 850, 852(2), 152 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1967). See also Waldrep v. Goodwin, 227 Ga. 560, 181 S.E.2d 837 (1971); Gray v. Alexander, 229 Ga. 722, 723(1), 194 S.E.2d 108 (1972); Powell v. Thigpen, 230 Ga. 760(1), 199 S.E.2d 251 (1973)......
- Waldrep v. Hall County
-
Miles v. Bryant, No. S03A1258.
...See Cornelius, 243 Ga. at 27(4), 252 S.E.2d 455; Ellis v. O'Neal, 175 Ga. 652, 165 S.E. 751 (1932). 13. 41 Ga. 696 (1871). 14. 227 Ga. 560, 181 S.E.2d 837 (1971). 15. 269 Ga. 180, 496 S.E.2d 711 (1998); see also Westmoreland v. Tallent, 274 Ga. 172, 174-175, 549 S.E.2d 113 (2001) ("self-pro......
-
Waldrep v. Goodwin
...Howe, Jr., Tallapoosa, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court HAWES, Justice. On May 6, 1971, this court decided Waldrep v. Goodwin, 227 Ga. 560, 181 S.E.2d 837 (1971), affirming the admission to probate of a will of Mrs. Muriel Waldrep. Subsequently, the caveator in that case, Hubert ......