Where a caveat to probate of a will is based on the ground of undue influence, the propounder, by appropriate demurrer, is entitled to be put on notice of facts relied on to constitute the undue influence. Field v. Brantley, 139 Ga. 437 (3) ( 77 S.E. 559); Stephens v. Hughey, 174 Ga. 561 (3, 4) ( 162 S.E. 915); Baucum v. Harper, 176 Ga. 296 ( 168 S.E. 27); Grover v. National City Bank of Rome, 179 Ga. 279 ( 175 S.E. 555); Peavey v. Crawford, 182 Ga. 782 ( 187 S.E. 13); Griffin v. Barrett, 183 Ga. 152, 164 ( 187 S.E. 828); Dingler v. Cumby, 189 Ga. 182, 184 ( 5 S.E.2d 753). The basic rules of pleadings and practice upon this subject are mandatory, and the failure to meet the demurrer by amendment setting forth substantial facts relied on requires a reversal. Mayor c. of Eastman v. Cameron, 111 Ga. 110 ( 36 S.E. 462); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Griffith, 111 Ga. 551 (3) ( 36 S.E. 859); Warren v. Powell, 122 Ga. 4 ( 49 S.E. 730); Cagle v. Shepard, 1 Ga. App. 192 ( 57 S.E. 946). While ordinarily nothing beyond the contents of the pleadings will be looked to in passing on a demurrer, yet, as pointed out in a case very similar to the instant case, the error in overruling this demurrer would subsequently have been rendered harmless had the judge at the trial eliminated the issue of undue influence from the jury; but he did not do so.
See History of the First Georgia Code, by Judge Richard H. Clark, Georgia Bar Association Report, 1890; Brown v. Brown, 184 Ga. 827, 830 ( 193 S.E. 754). These principles of law were evidently considered by the General Assembly as an assurance of adequate procedure for reaching what it denounced as error, thus leaving the matter to the courts, to grant new trials under such rules and regulations as they might establish according to law and the usage and custom of courts, or according to the provisions of the common law and the usual practice. See in this connection Dingler v. Cumby, 189 Ga. 182, 185 ( 5 S.E.2d 753). The opinion as delivered by my colleagues states that this statute "contemplates correction of error by motion for a new trial as provided for in other sections of the Code."
The larger objective is to provide aids to the more efficient administration of justice. See, as to the necessity for having rules of procedure, how a continual departure therefrom tends to bring chaos into the court, the statement of an accomplished law-writer quoted in Dingler v. Cumby, 189 Ga. 182, 185 ( 5 S.E.2d 753). For the reasons indicated in this division of the opinion there was no error in overruling exception 10, or in overruling exceptions 2,3,5,6,8, and 9, for the reason that the evidence is necessary to be considered in determining the question sought to be raised by the exceptions, and the testimony is not incorporated in the exceptions or attached thereto as exhibits; nor, as in exception 10, is there even any reference to pages of the auditor's report of the evidence, where it may be found, even if such reference would suffice.