Legal Opinion

Darnell v. Tate

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 15, 1951No. 33606PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWorrill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The Supreme Court of Georgia, in dealing with a general demurrer in the present litigation (Darnell v. Tate, 206 Ga. 576, 586, 58 S. E. 2d, 160), said: “Under the provisions of Code §§ 113-1101 and 113-2306, the court of ordinary has jurisdiction to accept the resignation of an executor and to appoint a successor according to the manner provided for in the will. The selection of a successor executor does not involve a construction of the will, and the item of the will providing for the manner of appointing a successor is plain and unambiguous, and within…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Darnell v. TateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  2. Yopp v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
  3. Jackson v. JacksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  4. Gormley v. WatsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  5. Lallerstedt v. JenningsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1857

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Butts v. Trust Company of GeorgiaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  2. Thomas v. ThomasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1993
  3. Darnell v. TateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API