Williamson v. Williamson, 8863
| Decision Date | 21 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 8863,8863 |
| Citation | 176 Ga. 510,168 S.E. 256 |
| Parties | WILLIAMSON et al. v. WILLIAMSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Dodge County; R, Earl Camp, Judge.
Suit by M. M. Williamson and others against J. G. Williamson. Judgment for defendant, plaintiffs' motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Lawson & Ware and H. F. Lawson, all of Hawkinsville, and Russell Ross, of Eastman, for plaintiffs in error.
J. H. Milner and Will Ed. Smith, both of Eastman, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Under the Civil Code, § 5858, par. 1, in an action of complaint for land, the opposite party to the grantee of a deed from a deceased person is not competent to testify in his own behalf to conversations and transactions with such deceased person affecting adversely the title conveyed by the deed. Hendrick v. Daniel, 119 Ga. 358, 46 S. E. 438. Accordingly, in an action of complaint for land, the defendant, J. Gould Williamson, being the immediate grantee of A. G. Williamson, since deceased (the alleged common grantor), J. F. Williamson, one of the plaintiffs, was incompetent to testify in his own behalf as to conversations and transactions with A. G. Williamson, since deceased, tending to show the execution and delivery of a prior deed by A. G. Williamson to a different person under whom the plaintiffs claim as sole heirs at law.
2. When the defendant in a civil case introduces no evidence, he is entitled to the opening and conclusion of the argument. Newsome v. Harrell, 146 Ga. 139(2), 90 S. E. 855; Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28(5), 42 S. E. 258; Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559(5), 89 S. E. 486. The ruling in Ramsey v. Ramsey, 174 Ga. 605(5), 163 S. E. 193, applies "where both parties introduce evidence, " Simmons v. Brannen, 155 Ga. 494, 496, 117 S. E. 318, 319, cited as authority in the Ramsey Case.
3. The verdict for the defendant was authorized by the evidence, and the judge did not err in overruling the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Martin
...the defendant in a civil case introduces no evidence, he is entitled to the opening and conclusion of the argument. Williamson v. Williamson, 176 Ga. 510 (2), 168 S. E. 256. And this is true even though the plaintiff should call as a witness the defendant himself and subject him to examinat......
-
Williamson v. Williamson
...168 S.E. 256 176 Ga. 510 WILLIAMSON et al. v. WILLIAMSON. No. 8863.Supreme Court of GeorgiaFebruary 21, Syllabus by Editorial Staff. In suit for land, plaintiff could not testify to conversations and transactions with deceased common grantor tending to show execution of deed to plaintiff's ......