O'Halloran v. O'Halloran

49 Ga. 301
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedOctober 15, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 49 Ga. 301 (O'Halloran v. O'Halloran) 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
O'Halloran v. O'Halloran, 49 Ga. 301 (Ga. 1873).

Opinion

Trippe, Judge.

This case was not argued before this Court, and as the sole ground in the motion for a new trial is that the verdict is against law and evidence, we have searched the record to ascertain if the verdict was.authorized by the evidence. There can be no doubt that the testimony justifies the granting a total divorce, under the law, if the jury thought it proper so to find. It was in proof that the land in the schedule was the property of the wife at the time of filing the libel, and the jury gave it to her and the children. It was not -wrong to allow the wife to keep what was already hers, when the husband had proved himself unworthy of her. As to the interest given to the children, that was a matter for the wife to complain of, if anybody could complain. The husband, in this ease, cannot object that the children were let in to share their mother’s property. It appeared from the Avife’s testimony that she was willing for her husband to have a portion. This she stated herself. But the jury would not be as liberal to him as she said she was willing to be, and we do not think they were wrong. It might be a question whether they could [303]*303have given a part of the wife’s property to the husband. By her consent, probably, all difficulty could have been avoided. But the jury did not feel justified in so doing. Under the evidence showing such cruelty and drunkenness, no one lias a right to complain that the wife’s land was secured to her and their children.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

First National Bank of Rome v. Yancey
62 S.E.2d 179 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Bryan v. Rowland
144 S.E. 275 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Dillin v. United Roofing & Supply Co.
129 S.E. 573 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Lamar v. Lamar
45 S.E. 498 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Sawyer
3 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 Ga. 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohalloran-v-ohalloran-ga-1873.