Court Opinion

ID: 9865532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 18:51:06.831818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:32:27.166677
License: Public Domain

*545On Motion for Rehearing.
Counsel for the plaintiff in error, in their motion for rehearing, contend that this court overlooked the fact that one ground of the demurrer sustained by the trial court was that “the deed is not testamentary in character,” and that by not deciding a question which has been directly passed on by the trial court,, this court is by implication affirming the judgment of the lower court on this ground of demurrer.
Whether or not the ground of demurrer, that the deed was not testamentary in character, stated a correct conclusion, the petition stated a cause of action for cancellation based on the alleged nondelivery of the instrument. A general demurrer to a petition that states a cause of action for any relief should be overruled. Reese v. Reese, 89 Ga. 652 (15 S. E. 846); Ga. Peruvian Ochre Co. v. Cherokee Ochre Co., 152 Ga. 153 (108 S. E. 609); Carolina Construction Co. v. Branch, 164 Ga. 838 (139 S. E. 676).
If, upon a trial of the cause, sufficient evidence should be offered to raise a question of fact (for determination by a jury) as to delivery of the instrument, competent evidence then would be admissible as to the intention of the maker on the issue of the alleged testamentary character of the instrument, which can be determined only from the whole instrument and the surrounding circumstances. The allegations of the petition and the language of the instrument are sufficient to raise a question as to the intention of the maker thereof. Neither the trial court on demurrer, nor this court on review, should undertake to determine the intention of the maker, independent of evidence, except in those instances where the intention is not in doubt from the full contents of the instrument itself.

Motion for rehearing denied.