Eddleman v. Eddleman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Eddleman v. Eddleman

190 S.E. 365, 55 Ga. App. 333, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 89

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1937

Docket25306

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 365 (Eddleman v. Eddleman) 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

Eddleman v. Eddleman, 190 S.E. 365, 55 Ga. App. 333, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

“Wliile the statutes of this State embodied in the Code of 1933, §§ 2-2201, 53-501, 53-502', 53-503, do not purport to change the common law in respect to personal torts committed by one spouse against the other, they do change the common law in respect to property rights of the wife. With respect to such rights she is a feme sole, and may be sued by her husband in a bail-trover proceeding for recovery of his personal property converted by her.” The foregoing ruling constitutes the headnote of the Supreme Court in this case, which was carried to that court by writ of certiorari; and the judgment of this court affirming the grant of a nonsuit (53 Ga. App. 368, 186 S. E. 154) was reversed. See the able and exhaustive opinion of Justice Atkinson, 183 Ga. 766 (189 S. E. 833). The former judgment of this court is vacated, and the judgment awarding a nonsuit is

Reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. John F. Echols, Oliver O. Hancock, for plaintiff. Robert Maginnis, for defendant.

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

Broyles, C. J.

“Wliile the statutes of this State embodied in the Code of 1933, §§ 2-2201, 53-501, 53-502', 53-503, do not purport to change the common law in respect to personal torts committed by one spouse against the other, they do change the common law in respect to property rights of the wife. With respect to such rights she is a feme sole, and may be sued by her husband in a bail-trover proceeding for recovery of his personal property converted by her.” The foregoing ruling constitutes the headnote of the Supreme Court in this case, which was carried to that court by writ of certiorari; and the judgment of this court affirming the grant of a nonsuit (53 Ga. App. 368, 186 S. E. 154) was reversed. See the able and exhaustive opinion of Justice Atkinson, 183 Ga. 766 (189 S. E. 833). The former judgment of this court is vacated, and the judgment awarding a nonsuit is

Reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur. John F. Echols, Oliver O. Hancock, for plaintiff. Robert Maginnis, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E. 365, 55 Ga. App. 333, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddleman-v-eddleman-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack