JOHNSON v. DODGEN., 244 Ga. 422, 260 S.E.2.d 332 (1979)
Linked as:
Text
William H. Dodgen, pro se.Seay, Sims & Park, Clifford Seay, for appellee.William T. Johnson, for appellant.
In superior court, the jury returned a verdict finding against the will. The propounder appeals.
The testatrix was a rather elderly lady, who had diabetes and other health problems. Her physician recommended that she go into a nursing home in order to control diabetic seizures suffered by her or she would die. When the caveator, her nephew, suggested that she go into a nursing home, she went into a rage and eventually became imbued with the idea that he was the reason she had to go into the nursing home, and that he wanted her to go into the nursing home in order to steal her possessions. She revoked a will naming the caveator as the sole beneficiary, and she wrote a new will, which is the will being offered for probate. [1]
1. On appeal, the caveator argues that the jury was authorized to invalidate the will on the ground of monomania. The term "monomania" means partial insanity. See 1 Redfearn, Wills and Administration in Ga. 80, 42 (3rd. Ed.). That is, the monomaniac is sane generally, but insane on a particular subject or class of subjects. E.g., Bohler v. Hicks,
UNDERCOFLER, Presiding Justice, concurring.
This case is to be distinguished from Irvin v. Askew,
1979
Notes:
1. The caveator brings this suit in his capacity as the testatrix' sole heir at law.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HAMMETT v. REYNOLDS., 243 Ga. 669, 256 S.E.2.d 354 (1979)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - IRVIN v. ASKEW., 241 Ga. 565, 246 S.E.2.d 682 (1978)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - WILLIAMS v. KENNEDY., 240 Ga. 163, 240 S.E.2.d 51 (1977)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - ENGLISH v. SHIVERS et al., 219 Ga. 515, 133 S.E.2.d 867 (1963)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - LANGAN et al. v. CHESHIRE., 208 Ga. 107, 65 S.E.2.d 415 (1951)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
