Walther v. Walther

Supreme Court of Georgia

Walther v. Walther

135 S.E.2d 401, 219 Ga. 644, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 352

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 6, 1964

Docket22300

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 S.E.2d 401 (Walther v. Walther) 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

Walther v. Walther, 135 S.E.2d 401, 219 Ga. 644, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 352 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This, case is one brought under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (Ga. L. 1958, pp. 34, 47). Section 24 of the Act, Code Ann. § 99-925a, provides that “laws attaching a privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife are inapplicable to proceedings under this Act” and “husband and wife are competent witnesses and may be compelled to testify to any relevant matter, including marriage and parentage.” Upon authority of this law the alleged father was called for cross-examination. He interposed an objection upon the ground that this was a quasi-criminal case, that the State would be bound by his testimony, and that he was being required to give testimony against himself. The objection was overruled, and there is an exception to this ruling. A motion to dismiss was also made on the ground that a final divorce decree (of a foreign jurisdiction) in evidence recited that there was no issue of said marriage and no evidence was offered to refute this decree. . There is an exception to the judgment denying this motion and to the final judgment awarding support. Held:

It is argued that the ruling requiring the plaintiff in error to testify violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Code § 1-805) and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. VI of the State Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-106). There was no attack by demurrer or otherwise upon the Act, and he failed to invoke the Fifth Amendment or other constitutional rights during the hearing when required to testify. It is also contended that the failure to sustain the motion to dismiss was a refusal to recognize the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution, which objection is also not shown to have been made at the timei of the' ruling. No constitutional attack was made in the lower court which could give this court jurisdiction of the writ of error. Loftin v. Southern Security Co., 162 Ga. 730 (134 SE 760); Huiet v. Dayan, 194 Ga. 250 (21 SE2d 423); Thompson v. Allen, 195 Ga. 733 (25 SE2d 423). Since the case is not otherwise within the jurisdiction of this court, it must be

Transje'iTed to- the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. John J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor General, Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Assistant Solicitor General, contra.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This, case is one brought under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (Ga. L. 1958, pp. 34, 47). Section 24 of the Act, Code Ann. § 99-925a, provides that “laws attaching a privilege against the disclosure of communications between husband and wife are inapplicable to proceedings under this Act” and “husband and wife are competent witnesses and may be compelled to testify to any relevant matter, including marriage and parentage.” Upon authority of this law the alleged father was called for cross-examination. He interposed an objection upon the ground that this was a quasi-criminal case, that the State would be bound by his testimony, and that he was being required to give testimony against himself. The objection was overruled, and there is an exception to this ruling. A motion to dismiss was also made on the ground that a final divorce decree (of a foreign jurisdiction) in evidence recited that there was no issue of said marriage and no evidence was offered to refute this decree. . There is an exception to the judgment denying this motion and to the final judgment awarding support. Held:

It is argued that the ruling requiring the plaintiff in error to testify violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Code § 1-805) and Art. I, Sec. I, Par. VI of the State Constitution (Code Ann. § 2-106). There was no attack by demurrer or otherwise upon the Act, and he failed to invoke the Fifth Amendment or other constitutional rights during the hearing when required to testify. It is also contended that the failure to sustain the motion to dismiss was a refusal to recognize the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the Constitution, which objection is also not shown to have been made at the timei of the' ruling. No constitutional attack was made in the lower court which could give this court jurisdiction of the writ of error. Loftin v. Southern Security Co., 162 Ga. 730 (134 SE 760); Huiet v. Dayan, 194 Ga. 250 (21 SE2d 423); Thompson v. Allen, 195 Ga. 733 (25 SE2d 423). Since the case is not otherwise within the jurisdiction of this court, it must be

Transje'iTed to- the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur. John J. Sullivan, for plaintiff in error. Andrew J. Ryan, Jr., Solicitor General, Sylvan A. Garfunkel, Assistant Solicitor General, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E.2d 401, 219 Ga. 644, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walther-v-walther-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack