Legal Opinion

Smaha v. George

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 11, 1943No. 14401PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Jenkins, Justice.

An instrument, reciting a consideration of $10 and other good and valuable considerations, purporting to convey lands to the maker’s nephews and nieces, with the usual habendum and warranty clauses and provisions of a deed, purporting to be signed by the maker by “his x mark,” attested by two witnesses, one a notary public, delivered to one of the grantees at the time of its execution, and recorded during the life of the grantor, is a deed, and not a void will because improperly witnessed as such, where, after conveying the property to the grantees, their heirs and assigns,…

2Cases cited45 opinions

  1. Ray v. GreenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  2. Huff v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  3. State v. . ParishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Millen & Southwestern Railroad v. AllenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  5. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. MathisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
  2. Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  3. Sears, Roebuck & Company v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
  4. Loomis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
  5. Teague v. KeithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959

33 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