Pryor v. Pryor
This text of 132 S.E. 895 (Pryor v. Pryor) 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.
Opinion
1. “The brief of evidence can not be considered by this court. The trial judge was without authority to approve the brief of evidence after the bill of exceptions had been certified.” Therefore the judgment of the court awarding the child to the mother must be affirmed. Simpson v. Simpson, 138 Ga. 204 (75 S. E. 98) ; Boatright v. Boatright, 150 Ga. 68 (102 S. E. 424). But the bill of exceptions will not be dismissed.
2. Aside from the contention that the evidence does not authorize the judgment, the bill of exceptions contains only one additional assignment of error, i. e., that the court erred in refusing to pei'mit counsel for respondent to propound to the child (nine years old) the question “with whom it wished to reside.” This ground is without merit. On this question the court is permitted to exercise a sound legal discretion; and in this instance no abuse is shown. Lamar v. Harris, 117 Ga. 993 (44 S. E. 866) ; Hammond v. Murray, 151 Ga. 817 (108 S. E. 203) ; Woodland v. Woodland, 153 Ga. 207 (111 S. E. 673); Landrum v. Landrum, 159 Ga. 324 (125 S. E. 832, 38 A. L. R. 217).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 S.E. 895, 162 Ga. 148, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-pryor-ga-1926.