Legal Opinion

Baynes v. Aiken

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 29, 1928No. 6292PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

When this^ease was first decided, the record as it then stood did not contain the word “living,” as it should have, in the copy of the deed from the grantor, E. W. Baynes, to his daughter, Tucker Aiken, and his son-in-law, Jefferson J. Aiken, as trustee, though the case was argued here as if the word “living” was in said clause of the deed. But the case was decided on the record as it then stood. On motion for rehearing, accompanied by suggestion of a diminution of the record, by counsel fox plaintiff in error, because of the omission by the clerk of the superior court of the word “living”…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. Starnes v. SandersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Guess v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  2. Calhoun v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
  3. Nelson v. EstillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
  4. Acree v. RaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  5. Guess v. MorganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API