Legal Opinion

Barker v. Haunson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 25, 1932No. 8292PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.

In Rogers v. Highnole, 126 Ga. 740 (56 S. E. 93), it was said: “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.” The same principle was thus stated in Thornquist v. Oglethorpe Lodge, 140 Ga. 297 (78 S. E. 1086) : “If two clauses of an item of a will are so…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Thomas v. OwensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. Sigel's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
  3. West v. RandleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  4. Crumley v. ScalesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  5. Smith v. SladeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rigdon v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
  2. Chamblee v. GuySupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
  3. Brown v. CliftonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  4. Curtis v. MossSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API