Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

132 Ga. 483

Compton v. Fender

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 19, 1909

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1909-04-19

Equitable petition. Before Judge Mitchell. Thomas superior court. May 21, 1908. Hansell W. Compton and other's brought their action -against J. Floyd Fender, praying an injunction to prevent the cutting of timber, and also to recover damages. The plaintiffs introduced a plat and grant from the State to Charles W. Compton, and then offered the answers of Hansell W. Compton to interrogatories.

Relies on Greenfield v. McIntyre · Cowan v. Corbett · Wilson v. Wood

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-04-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1949

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

3019091910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lumpkin, J.

¶11. Under the. decision in Greenfield v. McIntyre, 112 Ga. 691 (38 S. E. 44), “The best method of proving that no administration was ever had upon a particular estate is to introduce the evidence of the ordinary, or of another who has examined the records in the court of ordinary where letters of administration should' have been granted, that no such letters are shown by those records.” Cowan v. Corbett, 68 Ga. 66, 70; Wilson v. Wood, 127 Ga. 316 (56 S. E. 457).

¶22. The best evidence which exists of the facts sought to be proved must be produced, unless its absence is satisfactorily accounted for. Civil ' Code, §5162.

¶33. Where a witness had testified to the death of a person some fourteen years before the time of the trial, it was not error to reject the evidence of such witness that there had never been any administration on the estate of the decedent, although he also testified that he was the son and one of three heirs at law of the decedent; he being neither the ordinary nor another person who had examined the records.

¶4Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/132/ga/483 · .json · Public domain