Wetter v. Habersham
Supreme Court of Georgia
Wills. Descent. Estates. Parties. Evidence. Practice in the Superior Court. Charge of Court. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, 1877. The executors of Mary Telfair, deceased, propounded a will, which was caveated by two sets of heirs at law claiming separately — the “ Wetters ” and the “Joneses.” The case was carried from the court of ordinary to the superior court by appeal.
Read the full summary
Wills. Descent. Estates. Parties. Evidence. Practice in the Superior Court. Charge of Court. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. May Term, 1877. The executors of Mary Telfair, deceased, propounded a will, which was caveated by two sets of heirs at law claiming separately — the “ Wetters ” and the “Joneses.” The case was carried from the court of ordinary to the superior court by appeal. At the close of the evidence, counsel for the propounders moved to dismiss the caveat and appeal of the Wetters on the ground that the evidence of caveators showed that the J oneses were nearer of…
1Opinion of the Court
Hillyer, Judge.
1. The testatrix, Mary Telfair, died without children. There was much controversy as to who were her heirs at law, but all the contestants were remote collateral kindred. The estate disposed of under the will was a very large one, and the bulk of it is bequeathed to strangers; indeed, it may be said that all of it is so bequeathed, if the word “ strangers ” be taken to mean any persons not bearing the relationship of husband and wife, or children. The judge presiding' at the trial in the court below gave in charge to the jury, section 2399 of the Code, in which it is provided,…
2Cited by28 opinions
- Riley v. New York Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Slaughter v. HeathSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Peavey v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Field v. BrantleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Hooks v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.