Stebbins v. Stebbins

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stebbins v. Stebbins

57 S.E.2d 564, 206 Ga. 529, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 366

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1950

Docket16982

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 57 S.E.2d 564 (Stebbins v. Stebbins) 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

Stebbins v. Stebbins, 57 S.E.2d 564, 206 Ga. 529, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 366 (Ga. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) This case was assigned to the writer to prepare the opinion for the court. All of the members of this court except the writer have construed the new divorce law (Ga. L. 1946, p. 90; Code, Ann. Supp., § 30-101) to mean that, where a divorce is granted, the only mode of attacking that verdict is by a' written petition to modify or set aside the verdict within thirty days, otherwise the verdict and judgment become of full force and effect; and that a motion for new trial is not an available remedy to attack that verdict. Dugas v. Dugas, 201 Ga. 190 (39 S. E. 2d, 658); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 202 Ga. 752 (44 S. E. 2d, 485); Williams v. Williams, 203 Ga. 231 (46 S. E. 2d, 65); Allison v. Allison, 204 Ga. 202 (48 S. E. 2d, 723); Gault v. Gault, 204 Ga. 205 (48 S. E. 2d, 819); Huguley v. Huguley, 204 Ga. 692 (51 S. E. 2d, 445); Allison v. Allison, 205 Ga. 233 (53 S. E. 2d, 114); Winn v. Winn, 205 Ga. 314 (53 S. E. 2d 477).

Though the writer has dissented in each of the foregoing cases for reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in Dugas v. Dugas and Winn v. Winn, supra, the other members of this court being committed to the above-stated ruling, it was not error for the trial judge to dismiss the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., who dissents.

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

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) This case was assigned to the writer to prepare the opinion for the court. All of the members of this court except the writer have construed the new divorce law (Ga. L. 1946, p. 90; Code, Ann. Supp., § 30-101) to mean that, where a divorce is granted, the only mode of attacking that verdict is by a' written petition to modify or set aside the verdict within thirty days, otherwise the verdict and judgment become of full force and effect; and that a motion for new trial is not an available remedy to attack that verdict. Dugas v. Dugas, 201 Ga. 190 (39 S. E. 2d, 658); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 202 Ga. 752 (44 S. E. 2d, 485); Williams v. Williams, 203 Ga. 231 (46 S. E. 2d, 65); Allison v. Allison, 204 Ga. 202 (48 S. E. 2d, 723); Gault v. Gault, 204 Ga. 205 (48 S. E. 2d, 819); Huguley v. Huguley, 204 Ga. 692 (51 S. E. 2d, 445); Allison v. Allison, 205 Ga. 233 (53 S. E. 2d, 114); Winn v. Winn, 205 Ga. 314 (53 S. E. 2d 477).

Though the writer has dissented in each of the foregoing cases for reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in Dugas v. Dugas and Winn v. Winn, supra, the other members of this court being committed to the above-stated ruling, it was not error for the trial judge to dismiss the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E.2d 564, 206 Ga. 529, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stebbins-v-stebbins-ga-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack