Johnson v. Shook
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Crawford v. VernerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Gainesville Midland Railroad v. TynerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
- Goolsby v. GoolsbySupreme Court of Georgia · 1917
- McDowell v. SutliveSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Hodges v. Stuart Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rozier v. DAVIS/SMITH MORTGAGE CORPORATIONCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
- Palmer v. PalmerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991