Court Opinion

ID: 9581415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:39.996081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:55.972500
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant contends on motion for rehearing that “this court should insist in fairness and justice to this widow” under the facts of this case, implying that the legislative intent was that a widow would be entitled to a second year’s support if the estate is sufficient to pay off the debts and also provide a reasonable support for such widow (as is the situation here).
This view was expressed in the Woodbridge case, 70 Ga. 733, supra, decided in 1883, and this writer concurs in this seemingly more sensible conclusion. However, as pointed out in the opinion, the Supreme Court in Martin v. Gaissert, 139 Ga. 693, supra, decided in 1913, rejected this view and strictly construed the statute, concluding, “The statute is plain and unequivocal that the widow is entitled to the second year’s support under the condition named: ‘and there are no debts to pay.’ We cannot enlarge the statute beyond the limits prescribed by the legislature. It is within their province, and not ours, to extend the provisions of the statute, if they so desire. Until such time as they see fit to do so, we must construe the statute as we find it.”
The legislature, aware of the above decision, has not seen fit to enlarge or amplify the statute to the extent insisted upon by the appellant.

Motion denied.