Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Shook

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 6, 1981No. 60914PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Presiding Judge.

1. Although it is not absolutely essential to a determination of this case, we agree with the appellees that the document on which appellants rely is not a valid deed. In fact, it appears likely from much of the language therein contained — leaving certain heirs $5.00 apiece, prohibiting the sale of the land, and merely describing it as “my property and everything” — that it was intended as a will rather than a deed. It is true that an instrument may have effect partly as a will and partly as a deed even as to the same property. Code § 113-103. It would not, however, be…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crawford v. VernerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Gainesville Midland Railroad v. TynerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
  3. Goolsby v. GoolsbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
  4. McDowell v. SutliveSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  5. Hodges v. Stuart Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1907

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rozier v. DAVIS/SMITH MORTGAGE CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
  2. Palmer v. PalmerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API