Forrester v. Livingston

Supreme Court of Georgia

Forrester v. Livingston

120 S.E.2d 174, 216 Ga. 798, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 345

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1961

Docket21207

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 S.E.2d 174 (Forrester v. Livingston) 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

Forrester v. Livingston, 120 S.E.2d 174, 216 Ga. 798, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 345 (Ga. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Justice.

1. The respondent contends that he is legally entitled to have the children placed in his custody by virtue of the fact that by their father’s will he was nominated their guardian, was duly appointed by the ordinary, and qualified in regular order for the trust. This contention is without merit. Taylor v. Jeter, 33 Ga. 195 (3) (81 Am. Dec. 202); Raines v. Harris, 150 Ga. 103 (102 S. E. 827); Landrum v. Landrum, 159 Ga. 324 (125 S. E. 832, 38 A. L. R. 217).

2. The evidence adduced on the trial showed, without contradiction, that the plaintiff was the mother of the children and the person having the legal right to their custody. The evidence, properly construed, was in conflict as to the plaintiff’s fitness to rear the children who were the subject of the proceedings. There was evidence of grave misconduct on her part when she was a divorcee. She was apparently alone and without domestic ties to restrain her. But during the lapse of six years since the commission of the immoral acts, the plaintiff had married *800 and become the mother of three more children, and had with her husband established a home. We are aware of the rale embodied in Code § 38-118 as to the continuance of a mental state once proved to exist. In Anderson v. Blythe, 54 Ga. 507, 508, is the observation: “The doctrine that a state of things

once existing is presumed to continue until a change or some adequate cause of change appears, or until a presumption of change arises out of the nature of the subject, is an element of universal law.”

Here the circumstances which evidently influenced the plaintiff’s behavior six years before had changed substantially when the trial was held. Thus, there was no presumption that the petitioner’s character and conduct six years previously existed at the time of trial. Therefore, we are not prepared to say that the trial judge-was not in the exercise of the discretion vested in him to award the custody of the children to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Quillian, Justice.

1. The respondent contends that he is legally entitled to have the children placed in his custody by virtue of the fact that by their father’s will he was nominated their guardian, was duly appointed by the ordinary, and qualified in regular order for the trust. This contention is without merit. Taylor v. Jeter, 33 Ga. 195 (3) (81 Am. Dec. 202); Raines v. Harris, 150 Ga. 103 (102 S. E. 827); Landrum v. Landrum, 159 Ga. 324 (125 S. E. 832, 38 A. L. R. 217).

2. The evidence adduced on the trial showed, without contradiction, that the plaintiff was the mother of the children and the person having the legal right to their custody. The evidence, properly construed, was in conflict as to the plaintiff’s fitness to rear the children who were the subject of the proceedings. There was evidence of grave misconduct on her part when she was a divorcee. She was apparently alone and without domestic ties to restrain her. But during the lapse of six years since the commission of the immoral acts, the plaintiff had married *800 and become the mother of three more children, and had with her husband established a home. We are aware of the rale embodied in Code § 38-118 as to the continuance of a mental state once proved to exist. In Anderson v. Blythe, 54 Ga. 507, 508, is the observation: “The doctrine that a state of things

once existing is presumed to continue until a change or some adequate cause of change appears, or until a presumption of change arises out of the nature of the subject, is an element of universal law.”

Here the circumstances which evidently influenced the plaintiff’s behavior six years before had changed substantially when the trial was held. Thus, there was no presumption that the petitioner’s character and conduct six years previously existed at the time of trial. Therefore, we are not prepared to say that the trial judge-was not in the exercise of the discretion vested in him to award the custody of the children to the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E.2d 174, 216 Ga. 798, 1961 Ga. LEXIS 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forrester-v-livingston-ga-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack