Riley v. Riley

Supreme Court of Georgia

Riley v. Riley

157 S.E.2d 285, 223 Ga. 626, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 638

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1967

Docket24305

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.E.2d 285 (Riley v. Riley) 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

Riley v. Riley, 157 S.E.2d 285, 223 Ga. 626, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 638 (Ga. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Justice.

A petitioner is estopped to invoke the aid [627]*627of a court of equity to set aside a divorce decree on the contention that the jurisdictional averments of the divorce petition were false, where the petitioner in the equitable action (the defendant in the divorce action) on the day prior to the filing of the divorce petition entered into an agreement in contemplation of the action, acknowledged service of the petition, waived trial by jury, and agreed that the case be heard at the earliest time permitted by law; and, after learning of the pendency of the divorce action, made no effort to contest the truth of the jurisdictional averments, no fraud being practiced on him to prevent him from resisting the divorce action. Fuller v. Curry, 162 Ga. 293 (133 SE 244); Hardin v. Hardin, 218 Ga. 39 (126 SE2d 216).

Argued September 13, 1967 — Decided September 21, 1967. Alton D. Kitchins, for appellant. Usher & Hawpt, Reginald C. Iiawpt, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Mobley, Justice.

A petitioner is estopped to invoke the aid [627]*627of a court of equity to set aside a divorce decree on the contention that the jurisdictional averments of the divorce petition were false, where the petitioner in the equitable action (the defendant in the divorce action) on the day prior to the filing of the divorce petition entered into an agreement in contemplation of the action, acknowledged service of the petition, waived trial by jury, and agreed that the case be heard at the earliest time permitted by law; and, after learning of the pendency of the divorce action, made no effort to contest the truth of the jurisdictional averments, no fraud being practiced on him to prevent him from resisting the divorce action. Fuller v. Curry, 162 Ga. 293 (133 SE 244); Hardin v. Hardin, 218 Ga. 39 (126 SE2d 216).

Argued September 13, 1967 — Decided September 21, 1967. Alton D. Kitchins, for appellant. Usher & Hawpt, Reginald C. Iiawpt, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.E.2d 285, 223 Ga. 626, 1967 Ga. LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-riley-ga-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack