Brant v. Brant

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brant v. Brant

71 S.E.2d 209, 209 Ga. 151, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 427

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 9, 1952

Docket17883

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 209 (Brant v. Brant) 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

Brant v. Brant, 71 S.E.2d 209, 209 Ga. 151, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 427 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

On demurrer all properly pleaded allegations in the petition are admitted to be true, the demurrant denying the right of the petitioner to the relief sought. Code, § 81-304; Citizens & Southern National Bank v. King, 184 Ga. 238 (190 S. E. 857); City of Albany v. Lippitt, 191 Ga. 756 (13 S. E. 2d, 807); Collier v. Mayflower Apartments, 196 Ga. 419 (26 S. E. 2d, 731). The petitioner here alleges that the parties lived together as man and wife until the petitioner “separated from the defendant on November 14, 1951,” and the admission on demurrer that the above facts are true precludes the attack that the petition is fatally defective in that it does not allege a separation. The ground of divorce here is cruel treatment, which requires no definite period of separation under Code (Ann. Supp.) § 30-102 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 90, 91; 1951, pp. 744, 745). The petition alleges a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto.

*152 No. 17883. Submitted May 12, 1952 Decided June 9, 1952. 0. Frank Brant, Wm. J. Neville and W. G. Neville, for plaintiff in error. J. Henry Howard and Harry H. Hunter, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

On demurrer all properly pleaded allegations in the petition are admitted to be true, the demurrant denying the right of the petitioner to the relief sought. Code, § 81-304; Citizens & Southern National Bank v. King, 184 Ga. 238 (190 S. E. 857); City of Albany v. Lippitt, 191 Ga. 756 (13 S. E. 2d, 807); Collier v. Mayflower Apartments, 196 Ga. 419 (26 S. E. 2d, 731). The petitioner here alleges that the parties lived together as man and wife until the petitioner “separated from the defendant on November 14, 1951,” and the admission on demurrer that the above facts are true precludes the attack that the petition is fatally defective in that it does not allege a separation. The ground of divorce here is cruel treatment, which requires no definite period of separation under Code (Ann. Supp.) § 30-102 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 90, 91; 1951, pp. 744, 745). The petition alleges a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer thereto.

*152 No. 17883. Submitted May 12, 1952 Decided June 9, 1952. 0. Frank Brant, Wm. J. Neville and W. G. Neville, for plaintiff in error. J. Henry Howard and Harry H. Hunter, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 209, 209 Ga. 151, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brant-v-brant-ga-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack