Court Opinion

ID: 9851651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:16:53.160792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:10.229711
License: Public Domain

Carlisle, J.
1. Where a man dies intestate leaving no wife and no relatives except one daughter and the seven children of two deceased sons, if all the said surviving relatives are sui juris- and qualified to administer on the estate of the intestate, the person selected in writing by the daughter of the intestate is entitled to letters of administration in preference to the person selected in writing by the grandchildren of the intestate, although the grandchildren constitute a majority of the heirs of the estate both numerically and in point of interest. Dawson v. Shave, 162 Ga. 126 (132 S. E. 912); s. c., 35 Ga. App. 343 (133 S. E. 313); Sullens v. Pierce, 45 Ga. App. 207 (164 S. E. 93).
2. And this has been held to be true whether she is herself qualified or disqualified. Mabry v. Mabry, 65 Ga. App. 132 (15 S. E. 2d 447); Rivers v. Alsup, 188 Ga. 75 (2 S. E. 2d 632); Headman v. Rose, 63 Ga. 458, 465; Sampson v. Sampson, 44 Ga. App. 803 (163 S. E. 326).
3. Under an application of the foregoing rules of law to the facts of this case, the jury, on appeal from the ordinary, had no discretion but to name the person selected by Mrs. Langford, as he is of sound mind and laboring under no disability and she was the sole next of kin. See, in this connection, Sampson v. Sampson, supra, and citations.
4. In view of the foregoing ruling, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other errors assigned in the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.