Blackstock v. Blackstock

69 S.E.2d 770, 208 Ga. 837, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 367
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 12, 1952
Docket17759
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 69 S.E.2d 770 (Blackstock v. Blackstock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blackstock v. Blackstock, 69 S.E.2d 770, 208 Ga. 837, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 367 (Ga. 1952).

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

1. After a hearing, judgment was rendered, denying the mother’s application based upon alleged changed conditions affecting the welfare of the minor child whose custody was awarded to the father when a divorce was granted, and she excepts thereto. While proof of changed conditions and that the child’s welfare will be protected by changing custody will authorize a judgment to that effect (Willingham v. Willingham, 192 Ga. 405, 15 S. E. 2d, 514; Brooks v. Thomas, 193 Ga. 696, 19 S. E. 2d, 497; Fortson v. Fortson, 195 Ga. 750, 25 S. E. 2d, 518; Elders v. Elders, 206 Ga. 297, 57 S. E. 2d, 83), yet, where the evidence does not demand a finding to that effect, the matter is left to the discretion of the trial judge. The evidence here shows no materially different condition, and certainly fails to show any change that adversely affects the welfare of the child. It follows that the judgment refusing to change the custody must be affirmed.

2. While there is serious doubt if the assignment of error on the ruling allowing defendant’s counsel on cross-examination of plaintiff to interrogate her concerning the relationship of the husband’s mother to the child before the divorce decree, and also doubt if the record touching that matter is properly authenticated, we do not undertake to resolve those questions, since obviously the testimony complained of was not hurtful to the complainant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *838 J. C. Bowden and A. G. Smith, for plaintiff. Boyd & Reeves, for defendant.

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

Related

Wills v. Glunts
149 S.E.2d 106 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Floyd v. Floyd
129 S.E.2d 786 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Hackney v. Tench
117 S.E.2d 453 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Hendricks v. Hendricks
110 S.E.2d 659 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Perry v. Perry
95 S.E.2d 2 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)
Hicks v. Buffington
75 S.E.2d 560 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Thornton v. Outen
74 S.E.2d 867 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 S.E.2d 770, 208 Ga. 837, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackstock-v-blackstock-ga-1952.