Carter v. Carter

Supreme Court of Georgia

Carter v. Carter

113 S.E.2d 390, 215 Ga. 774, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 335

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 15, 1960

Docket20806

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E.2d 390 (Carter v. Carter) 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

Carter v. Carter, 113 S.E.2d 390, 215 Ga. 774, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 335 (Ga. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

On motion of the defendant in a divorce, alimony, and custody case, after judgment but before the end of the term, to vacate and set aside the decree for alleged fraud and duress practiced on the court and the defendant by the plaintiff in obtaining her signature to an agreement as to custody and alimony, and consent to try the case at the first term, a rule nisi issued, and after a hearing the court denied the motion. The exception being to that judgment, and the evidence in the record, on the issue of whether or not any fraud or duress existed in thus obtaining the decree, being in conflict, this court can not hold that the lower court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Tyler v. Eubanks, 207 Ga. 46 (1) (60 S. E. 2d 130), and cases cited therein at page 50.

Judgment ‘affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

On motion of the defendant in a divorce, alimony, and custody case, after judgment but before the end of the term, to vacate and set aside the decree for alleged fraud and duress practiced on the court and the defendant by the plaintiff in obtaining her signature to an agreement as to custody and alimony, and consent to try the case at the first term, a rule nisi issued, and after a hearing the court denied the motion. The exception being to that judgment, and the evidence in the record, on the issue of whether or not any fraud or duress existed in thus obtaining the decree, being in conflict, this court can not hold that the lower court abused its discretion in denying the motion. See Tyler v. Eubanks, 207 Ga. 46 (1) (60 S. E. 2d 130), and cases cited therein at page 50.

Judgment ‘affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E.2d 390, 215 Ga. 774, 1960 Ga. LEXIS 335, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-carter-ga-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack