Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Johnson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 6, 1957No. 19770PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

Item 3 of the will of A. A. Johnson can not properly be construed in accord with the contentions of either of the parties in the present case. The contention of the defendants that, should Ruth and Viola Johnson die without bodily heirs, the defendants would take the entire estate devised in item 3, can not be sustained under the law as applied to this item. Counsel for the defendants concede that item 3 was a devise to the five children named as a class.

“Grandchildren can not take in a will, under a bequest to children, unless there be something in the will to indicate and…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. ShuftenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
  2. Armstrong v. MertsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
  3. Gibson v. HardawaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
  4. Glore v. ScrogginsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  5. Todd v. WillifordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re MendenhallUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · 1980
  2. Chattahoochee Holdings, Inc. v. MarshallCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
  3. Raines v. DuskinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
  4. Busbee v. HaleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  5. Reynolds v. RackleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1967

4 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