Rigdon v. Cooper
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Jenkins, Chief Justice.
“If two clauses of a will are so inconsistent that both can not stand, the later will prevail; but the whole will is to be taken together, and operation is to be given every part of it, if this can be done without violating its terms or the intention of the testator. And the intention of the testator is to be sought by looking to the whole will rather than to detached parts of it.” Rogers v. Highnote, 126 Ga. 740 (1) (56 S. E. 93). “Before a posterior provision shall be given the effect of nullifying a devise previously made in the will, the con flict between the two…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Clark v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Thomas v. OwensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Rogers v. HighnoteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Golder v. LittlejohnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Bowman v. LongSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Darnell v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Jordan v. MiddletonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
- Chamblee v. GuySupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Price v. PriceSupreme Court of Georgia · 2010
- Odom v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.