Legal Opinion

Hungerford v. Trust Co. of Georgia

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 15, 1940No. 13293PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Duckworth, Justice.

We are not here concerned with any portion of the will except the codicil. The single question presented is whether under this codicil Hungerford is entitled to the bequest of $5000, since the petition shows that he was not living with his wife at the death of the testatrix. There is no issue as to the meaning of the language of the will. It must be conceded that the language, “provided they are living with their present wives at the time of my death,” has but one meaning, is unambiguous, and clearly states the condition upon which Hungerford is entitled to the bequest. By…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Sumpter v. CarterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Hertz v. AbrahamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
  3. Cook v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
  4. Comer v. Citizens & Southern National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
  5. Watts v. FinleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1939

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Darnell v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  2. Fiumefreddo v. ScudderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
  3. Gilmore v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
  4. McClelland v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
  5. Sproull v. GravesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942

17 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