Elliott v. Elliott

182 S.E. 845, 181 Ga. 545, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 159
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 16, 1935
DocketNo. 10942
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 182 S.E. 845 (Elliott v. Elliott) 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
Elliott v. Elliott, 182 S.E. 845, 181 Ga. 545, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 159 (Ga. 1935).

Opinion

Russell, Chief Justice.

1. On habeas corpus by a father to recover custody of his minor child living with the mother in Georgia, predicated upon a decree of a Michigan court dissolving his marriage and awarding the child to him, the full-faith-and-eredit clause of the Federal constitution did not preclude the Georgia court from declaring the Michigan decree void for lack of jurisdiction of the child. Boyd v. Glass, 34 Ga. 253 (89 Am. D. 252); Milner v. Gatlin, 139 Ga. 109 (76 S. E. 860). See also Mobley v. Mobley, 9 Ga. 247.

2. A father’s leaving his wife and minor child in Georgia to obtain employment for himself in Michigan, and his failing to provide for them, except sending them about $12 for about two 'years, held to authorize a finding that the father had voluntarily relinquished his parental authority over the child to the mother, under the Code of 1933, § 79-404, thereby rendering the domicile of 'the child that of the mother, so that a Michigan divorce decree awarding him the custody of the child was void for lack of jurisdiction, even though the mother filed an answer in the divorce proceeding, asking that she be awarded the child. Upon such finding the court was authorized to determine the habeas-eorpus case without regard to the foreign judgment, and solely in view of the welfare of the child as an original proposition.

3. Under the evidence the court did not err in finding that the interest of the child would be better promoted by awarding the custody to the mother, and in denying the writ of habeas corpus.

Judgment affirmed.

All'the Justices concur. Homer Watkins, for plaintiff. C. B. McGwi’ity, for defendant.

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

Related

Naylor v. Naylor
143 A.2d 604 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1958)
In Re on Behalf of Enke
287 P.2d 19 (Montana Supreme Court, 1955)
Hoskins v. Currin
88 S.E.2d 228 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Cocke v. Truslow
86 S.E.2d 686 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Mercer v. Foster
81 S.E.2d 458 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Gafford v. Phelps
69 S.E.2d 313 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Kowalke v. Lutheran Welfare Society
46 N.W.2d 275 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
In Re Guardianship of Kowalke
46 N.W.2d 275 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1950)
Application of Reed
43 N.W.2d 161 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1950)
Boor v. Boor
43 N.W.2d 155 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1950)
Boardman v. Boardman
62 A.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1948)
Mullins v. Mullins
174 P.2d 790 (Washington Supreme Court, 1946)
Simonds v. Simonds
154 F.2d 326 (D.C. Circuit, 1946)
Avera v. Trapnell
17 S.E.2d 168 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Drake v. Drake
1 S.E.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 S.E. 845, 181 Ga. 545, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-elliott-ga-1935.