Coursey v. Coursey

135 S.E. 718, 163 Ga. 206, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 49
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 19, 1926·No. No. 5330·Published

Opinion

Hines, J.

1. Where the evidence before the ordinary in'a habeas-corpus proceeding does not demand the judgment rendered by him, the discretion of the judge of the superior court in sustaining a certiorari and granting a first new trial will not be overruled. Bell v. Askins, 150 Ga. 635 (104 S. E. 421) ; Cloud v. Hightower, 152 Ga. 761 (111 S. E. 384).

2. The judgment of the ordinary awarding the children to the father was not demanded by the evidence; and under the rule announced in the first headnote, this court will not.disturb the first grant of a new trial by the judge upon the hearing of a certiorari to review the judgment of the ordinary. ' •' Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Coursey v. Coursey, 135 S.E. 718, 163 Ga. 206, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 49 (Ga. 1926).

135 S.E. 718 (Coursey v. Coursey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell v. Askins
104 S.E. 421 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1920)
Cloud v. Hightower
111 S.E. 384 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)