Legal Opinion

Ehlers v. Rheinberger

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 7, 1948No. 16296, 16298PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Jenkins, Chief Justice.

On the main bill of exceptions, the propounder complains of the verdict and judgment finding against the validity of the codicil. Whereas, on the cross-bill of exceptions, the caveatrix complains of the directed verdict in favor of the will. The first question for determination in this connection is whether or not the propounder has carried the burden of prov ing the formal execution of the two instruments. The law upon this subject is: “On the trial of an issue arising upon the propounding of a will and a caveat thereto, the burden, in the first instance, is on the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. DeNieff v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
  2. Bohler v. HicksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  3. Brumbelow v. HopkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
  4. Thompson v. DavitteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1877
  5. Evans v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Singelman v. SingelmannSupreme Court of Georgia · 2001
  2. Akin v. PattonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  3. Bianchini v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  4. Andrews v. RentzSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996
  5. Andrews v. RentzSupreme Court of Georgia · 1996

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API