Soderburg v. Soderburg

Supreme Court of Georgia

Soderburg v. Soderburg

94 S.E.2d 873, 212 Ga. 685, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 494

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 29, 1956

Docket19449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 94 S.E.2d 873 (Soderburg v. Soderburg) 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

Soderburg v. Soderburg, 94 S.E.2d 873, 212 Ga. 685, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 494 (Ga. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

The order of the trial judge, requiring the plaintiff to execute a bond conditioned upon his returning the children to the defendant in the State of Georgia, was not in any sense a modification of the decree of the District Court of the State of Idaho. The decree upon which he relies requires that he pay their transportation and return the children to the defendant in the State of Georgia. The requirement as to the bond, under the facts of this case, was solely within the discretion of the trial judge. Pruitt v. Butterfield, 189 Ga. 593 (6 S. E. 2d 786); Good v. Good, 205 Ga. 112, 115 (52 S. E. 2d 610).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., not participating.

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

Head, Justice.

The order of the trial judge, requiring the plaintiff to execute a bond conditioned upon his returning the children to the defendant in the State of Georgia, was not in any sense a modification of the decree of the District Court of the State of Idaho. The decree upon which he relies requires that he pay their transportation and return the children to the defendant in the State of Georgia. The requirement as to the bond, under the facts of this case, was solely within the discretion of the trial judge. Pruitt v. Butterfield, 189 Ga. 593 (6 S. E. 2d 786); Good v. Good, 205 Ga. 112, 115 (52 S. E. 2d 610).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 S.E.2d 873, 212 Ga. 685, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soderburg-v-soderburg-ga-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack