Ramsey v. Womack
This text of 107 S.E.2d 180 (Ramsey v. Womack) 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
Where, as here, the defendant, after a citation for contempt and a hearing thereon, is held in contempt for obstructing a private way which the injunctive order he is cited as having violated enjoined him from doing as well as from trespassing on petitioner’s property, the citation is not void, as the court had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, even though the original prayer was only to enjoin the trespass and “for such other and further relief as to the court may seem reasonable and just”; there being no objection thereto and the pleadings being ample to cover the additional relief granted. See Code §§ 37-105, 37-120, 55-104; Peek v. Wright, 65 Ga. 638; Hickson v. Mobley, 80 Ga. 314 (5 S. E. 495); Hairalson v. Carson, 111 Ga. 57 (36 S. E. 319); Broderick v. Reid 164 Ga. 474 (2) (139 S. E. 18); Pendley v. Tumlin, 181 Ga. 808, 811 (184 S. E. 283); Avary v. Avary, 202 Ga. 22 (2) (41 S. E. 2d 314). Therefore, the court did not err in denying the oral motion to dismiss the citation for contempt, which complains that the court was without jurisdiction of the subject matter and that the citation was based on a judgment and decree void on its face.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
107 S.E.2d 180, 214 Ga. 722, 1959 Ga. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsey-v-womack-ga-1959.