Hungerford v. Trust Co. of Georgia
Supreme Court of Georgia
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
- Sumpter v. CarterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Hertz v. AbrahamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Cook v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Comer v. Citizens & Southern National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Watts v. FinleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Darnell v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Fiumefreddo v. ScudderSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984
- Gilmore v. GilmoreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
- McClelland v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
- Sproull v. GravesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.