Perry v. Higgison

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Perry v. Higgison

240 S.E.2d 290, 144 Ga. App. 58, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1977

Docket54445

StatusPublished

This text of 240 S.E.2d 290 (Perry v. Higgison) 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

Perry v. Higgison, 240 S.E.2d 290, 144 Ga. App. 58, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

In this case involving the distribution of an estate, appellants claim the trial court erred in its charge and in overruling their motion for new trial. We affirm.

1. Appellants objected, as follows, to the charge setting out the principle of Code § 113-904: "Your honor, at this time, I object to any discrimination. I object to the court’s instructions making a discrimination to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child. We object on the basis of it being unconstitutional to the state, and unconstitutional as it is applied here.” This objection was insufficient to raise any constitutional question as to the law charged, and the trial court’s overruling of the objection was not error. Elinburg v. State, 227 Ga. 246 (179 SE2d 926) (1971).

2. Appellants filed their motion for new trial on December 19,1975, before the court entered its judgment, on December 22,1975. Since the motion for new trial was void, the trial court did not err in denying it. Moore v. Moore, 229 Ga. 600 (193 SE2d 608) (1972).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

In this case involving the distribution of an estate, appellants claim the trial court erred in its charge and in overruling their motion for new trial. We affirm.

1. Appellants objected, as follows, to the charge setting out the principle of Code § 113-904: "Your honor, at this time, I object to any discrimination. I object to the court’s instructions making a discrimination to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child. We object on the basis of it being unconstitutional to the state, and unconstitutional as it is applied here.” This objection was insufficient to raise any constitutional question as to the law charged, and the trial court’s overruling of the objection was not error. Elinburg v. State, 227 Ga. 246 (179 SE2d 926) (1971).

2. Appellants filed their motion for new trial on December 19,1975, before the court entered its judgment, on December 22,1975. Since the motion for new trial was void, the trial court did not err in denying it. Moore v. Moore, 229 Ga. 600 (193 SE2d 608) (1972).

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and McMurray, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 S.E.2d 290, 144 Ga. App. 58, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perry-v-higgison-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack