Case ID: ga_165/html/0176-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ciusert, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Greenman v. Carpenter.
    Adoption of Children, 1 O. J. p. 1395, n. 62 New.
    New Trial, 29 Cyc. p. 788, n. 97; p. 947, n. 9.
    Trial, 38 Cyc. p. 1778, n. 73; p. 1779, n. 75.
    No. 5829.
    November 17, 1927.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge J. B. Jones. Habersham superior court. December 21, 1926.
    Mrs. Greenman brought suit against Mrs. Carpenter to recover a portion of the estate of the latter’s deceased husband, based upon the contention that said husband contracted and agreed to adopt plaintiff as a child; and that though the adoption was not carried out as provided by law, she sustained the relationship of a virtual adoption. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, based upon the general grounds, and upon grounds assigning error upon portions of the court’s charge, and upon the court’s ruling allowing, over objection, the defendant to testify to “communications and contracts with her husband, John E. Carpenter, deceased, as she was sole heir at law of her husband and defending the estate as personal representative.” The court overruled the motion, and the plaintiff excepted.
    
      J. J. & Sam. Eimzey, for plaintiff.
    
      J. O. & H. E. Edwards, for defendant.
   Ciusert, J.

1. Considering' the charge as a whole and tire portions upon which error is assigned, in connection with the plaintiff’s petition, none of the grounds of the motion relating to the charge show error.

2. The ground complaining that the court allowed the defendant to testify as to “communications and contracts” with her husband is incomplete, as it sets out no evidence.

3. The verdict is supported by evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.