From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Estate of Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 27, 1983
307 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. 1983)

Opinion

40069.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983. REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 19, 1983.

Probate of will. Columbia Superior Court. Before Judge Fleming.

John D. Watkins, for appellant.

Edward B. Stalnaker, L. Valdi Cooper, for appellee.


The propounder appeals from judgment of the superior court sustaining the caveat to the last will and testament of Addie Etoy Harris.

1. Testamentary capacity was at issue before the jury. A subscribing witness, testifying for the propounder, was asked whether the testatrix was "of sound and disposing mind and memory" when the instrument was executed. The witness responded, "Yes, I think she was." The court then sustained an objection by the caveatrix that the question — already asked and answered — "calls for a conclusion, which is the very issue that this Court is to determine."

"A subscribing witness to a will may give his opinion as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will without setting forth facts upon which such opinion is founded." Tinnerman v. Baldwin, 211 Ga. 532 (1) ( 87 S.E.2d 65) (1955). The cases of Scott v. Gibson, 194 Ga. 503 ( 22 S.E.2d 51) (1942), and Smoot v. Alexander, 188 Ga. 203 (2) ( 3 S.E.2d 593) (1939), do not contradict this principle because they relate to witnesses other than subscribing witnesses. Reid v. Wilson, 208 Ga. 235 (1) ( 65 S.E.2d 913) (1951).

The court should not have sustained the objection. However, this was harmless in light of the fact that the jury already had heard the answer of this witness, and already had heard the testimony of the other subscribing witness that the testatrix "was decided and rational as to what she wanted done," had signed the instrument "freely and voluntarily," "was in her right mind," "was not confused," "knew what she was doing," and "wanted to do what she did." OCGA § 9-11-61 (Code Ann. § 81A-161); Bailey v. Johnson, 245 Ga. 823, 828 (5) ( 268 S.E.2d 147) (1980).

2. The remaining enumerations of error lack any merit.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Smith, J., who dissents.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1983 — REHEARING DENIED OCTOBER 19, 1983.


Summaries of

In re Estate of Harris

Supreme Court of Georgia
Sep 27, 1983
307 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. 1983)
Case details for

In re Estate of Harris

Case Details

Full title:IN RE ESTATE OF ADDIE ETOY HARRIS

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Sep 27, 1983

Citations

307 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. 1983)
307 S.E.2d 482

Citing Cases

McAlpine v. Leveille

However, we do not find that the exclusion of the affidavits warrants a new trial, as the information…

Horton v. Horton

Subscribing witnesses to a will may give their opinions as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the…