Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lovell v. Anderson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 5, 2000No. S00A0273Published

1DissentBenham, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent to the majority opinion because I believe that the common law presumption that a testator made marks on a will where a will is found altered among his personal effects should not apply in this case because Field’s will was not in his secure custody, control or possession at the time the will was found. Since there appears to be no evidence to determine whether or not Field made the marks, the presumption that the testator made the marks if the will was found among his “papers” or “effects” applies. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 120 Ga. 67 (2) (47 SE 501) (1904) (“Where the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McIntyre v. McIntyreSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Olmsted v. BussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. King v. BennettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
  4. Porch v. FarmerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  5. Singleton v. ShewmakeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937

2 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