Miller v. Miller

77 S.E. 21, 139 Ga. 282, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 403
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 18, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 21 (Miller v. Miller) 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
Miller v. Miller, 77 S.E. 21, 139 Ga. 282, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 403 (Ga. 1913).

Opinion

Eisii, C. J.

1. “Cruel treatment” within the meaning of Civil Code, § 2946, which provides that such treatment shall be ground for divorce, is the wilful infliction of pain, bodily or mental, upon the complaining, party, such as reasonably justifies an apprehension of damage -to life, limb or health. Stoner v. Stoner, 134 Ga. 368 (67 S. E. 1030).

(a) Accordingly, where upon the trial of an action for divorce there was evidence to the effect that the libelant, being a woman undergoing “the change of life,” was during such time falsely and repeatedly charged by the defendant, and in her presence, with incestuous adultery with her brother, and these charges produced such mental pain to the libelant as to cause her to become so ill as to make it necessary to keep her in bed, at times for as long as two weeks, and there was no evidence of condonation on her part, the jury were authorized to find a verdict for a total divorce in behalf of the libelant on the ground of cruel treatment.

2. On the trial of a divorce ease, where the defendant merely resisted the granting of a divorce to the libelant, it is’ not cause for the grant of a new trial on behalf of the defendant that the verdict found generally in favor of the libelant for a total divorce, without in express terms referring to the status or disabilities of the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Libel for divorce. Before Judge Maddox. 1 Floyd superior court. January 2, 1912. Copeland, Hamilton & Hutchens and W. M. Henry, for plaintiff in error. W. E. Mann and Maddox & Boyal, contra.

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

Related

Hardy v. Hardy
144 S.E.2d 172 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Anglin v. Anglin
76 S.E.2d 498 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Carnegie v. Carnegie
55 S.E.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Morris v. Morris
43 S.E.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Dillard v. Dillard
30 S.E.2d 621 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Alford v. Alford
7 S.E.2d 278 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Smith v. Smith
145 S.E. 63 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Cox v. Cox
127 S.E. 132 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Wilkinson v. Wilkinson
125 S.E. 856 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Phinizy v. Phinizy
114 S.E. 185 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Skellie v. Skellie
111 S.E. 22 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Ford v. Ford
91 S.E. 42 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Pierce v. Pierce
89 S.E. 1045 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Hood v. Hood
86 S.E. 218 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 S.E. 21, 139 Ga. 282, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-miller-ga-1913.