Saldivia v. Saldivia

Supreme Court of Georgia

Saldivia v. Saldivia

126 S.E.2d 615, 218 Ga. 98, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 441

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1962

Docket21688

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 S.E.2d 615 (Saldivia v. Saldivia) 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

Saldivia v. Saldivia, 126 S.E.2d 615, 218 Ga. 98, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 441 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

To the amended petition for divorce, which alleged that the petitioner and the defendant “entered into a common-law relationship,” lived together for about seven months, and “set themselves forth as man and wife and were known” as such, and to whom was born a child, and the defendant paid the doctor’s bills and for drugs, was attached an exhibit, a contract between the parties concerning custody of the child which contained the following: “The parties hereto are not now nor have they ever been married. . . There has never been any intent on the part of either party to marry the other and whereas neither party has any intent to enter into marriage with the other.” The exception here is to the judgment overruling defendant’s general demurrer to the petition. Held:

Whenever allegations contradict an attached exhibit, the exhibit controls. Vandiver v. Endicott, 215 Ga. 250, 251 (109 SE2d 775); Irwin v. Dailey, 216 Ga. 630, 645 (dissent) (118 SE2d 827). Thus construed, no marriage is shown *99 (Peacock v. Peacock, 196 Ga. 441, 26 SE2d 608), and the court erred in overruling the demurrer.

Argued June 13, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962. Gernstein & Carter, for plaintiff in error. Strother & Spence, G. H. Strother, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

To the amended petition for divorce, which alleged that the petitioner and the defendant “entered into a common-law relationship,” lived together for about seven months, and “set themselves forth as man and wife and were known” as such, and to whom was born a child, and the defendant paid the doctor’s bills and for drugs, was attached an exhibit, a contract between the parties concerning custody of the child which contained the following: “The parties hereto are not now nor have they ever been married. . . There has never been any intent on the part of either party to marry the other and whereas neither party has any intent to enter into marriage with the other.” The exception here is to the judgment overruling defendant’s general demurrer to the petition. Held:

Whenever allegations contradict an attached exhibit, the exhibit controls. Vandiver v. Endicott, 215 Ga. 250, 251 (109 SE2d 775); Irwin v. Dailey, 216 Ga. 630, 645 (dissent) (118 SE2d 827). Thus construed, no marriage is shown *99 (Peacock v. Peacock, 196 Ga. 441, 26 SE2d 608), and the court erred in overruling the demurrer.

Argued June 13, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962. Gernstein & Carter, for plaintiff in error. Strother & Spence, G. H. Strother, contra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 615, 218 Ga. 98, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saldivia-v-saldivia-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack