Pryor v. Pryor

132 S.E. 895, 162 Ga. 148, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 125
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 16, 1926·No. No. 5065·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

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.

All the Justices eoneur. J. A. Darsey, for plaintiffs in error. D. R. Gumming, contra.

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

Pryor v. Pryor, 132 S.E. 895, 162 Ga. 148, 1926 Ga. LEXIS 125 (Ga. 1926).

132 S.E. 895 (Pryor v. Pryor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fernandez v. Sams
139 S.E.2d 307 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Clark v. State
135 S.E.2d 270 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Cobb v. DeLong
120 S.E.2d 177 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Hall v. MacOn, Dublin Savannah Railroad Company
43 S.E.2d 582 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Cutis v. Geiger
169 S.E. 127 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)