Grooms v. Grooms
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Fish, C. J.
1. Where plaintiffs in an action of ejectment claim title as heirs at law of a decedent, it is incumbent upon them, in order to recover, to show that there is no administration upon the estate of the decedent, or, if administration, that they have the consent of the administrator to sue. Gornto v. Wilson, 141 Ga. 597 ( 81 S. E. 860 ).
2. Testimony of a widow that there has been no permanent administration upon the estate of her deceased husband is inadmissible, where she does not go further and testify that she has examined the records of the court of ordinary of the county where administration should have been granted, and that the examination fails to show the existence of such . administration. Gornto v. Wilson, supra..
3. The assignments of error in the exceptions pendente lite are not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiffs in error, and under the uniform practice of this court they will be treated as abandoned.
4. Other grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit, and are not of such character.as to require elaboration.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.