Binford v. Reid

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Binford v. Reid

63 S.E.2d 345, 83 Ga. App. 280, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 850

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 27, 1951

Docket33183

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 345 (Binford v. Reid) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Binford v. Reid, 63 S.E.2d 345, 83 Ga. App. 280, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 850 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

The action of the superior court in granting or refusing a proper application to change the name of a person is based solely on a sound legal discretion; and where, upon the hearing of the application of Dorothy Lowe Reid under the provisions of Chap. 79-5 of the Code (Ann. Supp.), § 79-501, to change the name of the applicant’s minor son from “Henry Arthur Binford III” to “George Lowe Reid,” it appears that the applicant is the divorced wife of the objector, Harry Arthur Binford Jr., that Harry Arthur Binford III was born on September 18, 1945, that the applicant separated from the objector in 1946, obtained her divorce, and in July of that year when the said Harry Arthur Binford III was less than one year old married William Archer Reid, that, under the terms of the divorce decree granted (he applicant, she has sole custody of the child with the right of visitation in the objector, and that the objector pays $50 per month for the support of the said child, and where the evidence shows that the said Harry Arthur Binford III has been called by his mother, stepfather, and friends “Buddy Reid” since before he was able to walk or talk, and *281 goes by that name, is registered in kindergarten, and is known to his playmates and acquaintances as “Buddy Reid,” and that the applicant feels that it would be for the best interest of the child to avoid embarrassment and confusion to change the name so that his surname will be the same as his mother’s,' and the same as the surnames of his sister and brother, bom of the second marriage—the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the application and in changing the name of the child to “George Lowe Reid,” and in thereafter overruling the motion for a new trial on the general grounds.

Decided January 27, 1951. Rehearing denied February 9, 1951. • Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, Francis G. Jones, for plaintiff in error. Hugh Howell Jr., Hey man, Hoiuell & Hey man, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, CJ., and Felton, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Worrill, J.

The action of the superior court in granting or refusing a proper application to change the name of a person is based solely on a sound legal discretion; and where, upon the hearing of the application of Dorothy Lowe Reid under the provisions of Chap. 79-5 of the Code (Ann. Supp.), § 79-501, to change the name of the applicant’s minor son from “Henry Arthur Binford III” to “George Lowe Reid,” it appears that the applicant is the divorced wife of the objector, Harry Arthur Binford Jr., that Harry Arthur Binford III was born on September 18, 1945, that the applicant separated from the objector in 1946, obtained her divorce, and in July of that year when the said Harry Arthur Binford III was less than one year old married William Archer Reid, that, under the terms of the divorce decree granted (he applicant, she has sole custody of the child with the right of visitation in the objector, and that the objector pays $50 per month for the support of the said child, and where the evidence shows that the said Harry Arthur Binford III has been called by his mother, stepfather, and friends “Buddy Reid” since before he was able to walk or talk, and *281 goes by that name, is registered in kindergarten, and is known to his playmates and acquaintances as “Buddy Reid,” and that the applicant feels that it would be for the best interest of the child to avoid embarrassment and confusion to change the name so that his surname will be the same as his mother’s,' and the same as the surnames of his sister and brother, bom of the second marriage—the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the application and in changing the name of the child to “George Lowe Reid,” and in thereafter overruling the motion for a new trial on the general grounds.

Decided January 27, 1951. Rehearing denied February 9, 1951. • Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, Francis G. Jones, for plaintiff in error. Hugh Howell Jr., Hey man, Hoiuell & Hey man, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, CJ., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E.2d 345, 83 Ga. App. 280, 1951 Ga. App. LEXIS 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binford-v-reid-gactapp-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack