Love v. McManus
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Hawkins, Justice.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) While the intention of a testator cannot be given effect if contrary to express enactments of the legislature or positive rules of property (Wright v. Hill, 140 Ga. 554, 79 S. E. 546; Lester v. Stephens, 113 Ga. 495, 499, 39 S. E. 109; Hertz v. Abrahams, 110 Ga. 707, 36 S. E. 409; Thompson v. Sanders, 118 Ga. 928, 930, 45 S. E. 715; Stringfellow v. Harmon, 207 Ga. 62, 60 S. E. 2d, 139)—in the construction of a will the cardinal rule is that the intention of the testator should be the first and great object of inquiry, and this is to be…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Cushman v. ColemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Hertz v. AbrahamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Cook v. WeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Woodbery v. Atlas Realty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Clark v. BakerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lanier v. LanierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Barfield v. AikenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
- Barnes v. NationsBank, N.A.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1996
- Lanier v. LanierSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962