Johnson v. City of Blackshear
Johnson v. City of Blackshear
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff sought injunction to restrain enforcement of executions for paving assessments, and prayed that the assessments and the executions be canceled. She asserted title to the property involved, as sole heir at law of her mother, to whom the property had been set apart as a year’s support, and who died intestate. She sued as an individual and as administratrix, presenting mainly two contentions: (1) that the year’s support was superior to the paving assessments; (2) that, regardless of priority, the executions were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial resulted in a finding and decree in favor of the plaintiff on the latter issue, and granting an injunction upon that ground, but sustaining the defendants’ contention as to invalidity of the year’s support, and denying the relief of cancellation. The plaintiff, having thus faile'd to obtain all of the substantial relief sought in her petition, and having actually suffered an adverse adjudication as to validity of the year’s support, filed a motion for a new trial, which after amendment was overruled, and she excepted. She also complained of an order overruling her demurrer attacking an amendment to the defendants’ answer.
Since the finding and decree as to dormancy of the executions were favorable to the plaintiff, and there were no cross-exceptions by the defendants, the facts touching that issue were not developed in the statement and no further reference to it will be made in this opinion.
It has been held by this court that where property of a de
While the question discussed in this division was not specifically argued in the briefs, or at least was not stressed, we have deemed it necessary to pass uppn it as a question inhering in the record, because, if the liens could not be treated either as “debts” or as “claims against the estate,” the year’s support could in no event be given priority, and for that reason the plaintiff’s case would necessarily fail.
The questions next to be considered were raised by the demurrer to the defendant’s amendment. To the extent that this amendment challenged the year’s support, on the ground that before applying for the same the widow had elected to accept the provision made for her in her husband’s will in lieu of dower and year’s support, it attempted to raise an issue that would have constituted proper matter for caveat in the court of ordinary. The return of the appraisers having included the property against which the city held the liens for paving, the city would have been qualified as a “person concerned” to object to the return upon such ground. Code, § 113-1005; Mathews v. Rountree, 123 Ga. 327 (51 S. E. 423). Such an election, without more,4 would require only an expression of choice by the widow in some appropriate manner; and therefore a caveat limited to that ground would present no issue as to title, so as to exceed the jurisdiction of the court of ordinary. Forester v. Watford, 67 Ga. 508; Dix v. Dix, 132 Ga. 630 (2) (64 S. E. 790). Accordingly, as to this issue, the amendment amounted to a collateral attack upon the year’s support, and did not set forth a valid defense to the instant suit. Chambliss v. Bolton, 146 Ga. 734 (92 S. E. 204); Bass v. Douglass, 150 Ga. 678 (104 S. E. 625); McNair v. Rabun, 159 Ga. 401 (4), 410 (126 S. E. 9); Kerr v. McAnally, 183 Ga. 365 (1) (188 S. E. 687). The right of a lien holder to file a caveat on such ground was not involved in Paulk v. City of Ocilla, 55 Ga. App. 479 (190 S. E. 409).
Nor was the year’s support void, as alleged in the same amendment, because the order admitting the return of the appraisers to
So if the amendment to the answer had alleged nothing more than what has just been stated, it would not have been sufficient to withstand the plaintiff’s demurrer; but it alleged also, in effect, that the widow and her daughter had under the terms of the will accepted these lots as their property, had taken charge of them, and received the income therefrom, before they were set apart as a year’s support, and therefore that the year’s support was void as to this property, since it was not at the time a part of the decedent’s estate. It is true as a matter of law that a year’s support for a widow can be set apart to her only from the estate of her deceased husband; and if property included therein does not as a matter of fact constitute a part of his estate, the judgment of the court of ordinary simply will not attach to such property, but will be void as applied thereto. Odom v. Hoppendeitzel, 153 Ga. 20 (111 S. E. 419); Bank of Wrightsville v. Powell, 163 Ga. 291 (135 S. E. 922); Exchange Bank v. Cash, 169 Ga. 753 (151 S. E. 345); Backer v. City Bank & Trust Co., 180 Ga. 672 (180 S. E. 604); Richey v. First National Bank of Commerce, 180 Ga. 751 (180 S. E. 740; Matthews v. Manhattan Life Insurance Co., 55 Ga. App. 204 (189 S. E. 858). The amendment to the answer thus contained one valid attack upon the year’s support, and therefore the court did not err in overruling the plaintiff’s general demurrer assailing the amendment as a whole. Blaylock v. Hackel, 164 Ga. 257 (5) (138 S. E. 333); Pardue Medicine Co. v. Pardue, 194 Ga. 516 (2) (22 S. E. 2d, 143).
■ It follows that the finding by the judge in favor of the defendants as to invalidity of the year’s support was contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it; and for this reason the court erred in not granting 'a new trial on the general grounds. This ruling being controlling upon the record as now presented, it is unnecessary to pass upon either of the special grounds.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.