Zachary v. Zachary

81 S.E. 120, 141 Ga. 404, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 220
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 23, 1914
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 120 (Zachary v. Zachary) 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
Zachary v. Zachary, 81 S.E. 120, 141 Ga. 404, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 220 (Ga. 1914).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. A petition for divorce, on'the statutory ground of three years continuous desertion, can be amended before the first verdict by adding thereto a discretionary ground based on cruel treatment perpetrated before the suit was filed. The case of Ring v. Ring, 112 Ga. 854 (38 S. E. 330), was decided by four Justices, and is not controlling in so far as it may conflict with the ruling above announced:

2. The answer of the defendant denied the allegations of the petition . relative to the grounds of divorce, and contained allegations and a prayer seeking permanent alimony. The evidence as to cruel treatment upon the part of the wife was conflicting, and was such as would not ordinarily preclude the recovery of alimony. By virtue of the ruling in Davis v. Davis, 134 Ga. 804 (68 S. E. 594, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 73, 20 Ann. Cas. 20), it was error, under the pleadings and evidence, to omit to charge the law applicable to the subject of permanent alimony. Fish, C. J., and Atkinson, J., do not recede from their dissent in the case'last cited.

3. The judge charged that in their discretion the jury might grant a total or partial divorce, but did not explain the difference between the two. It would be proper to explain the difference as set forth in the Civil Code, § 2944 et seq.; but in the absence of an appropriate request such omission was not, under the facts of the case, sufficient ground for the grant of a new trial.

Judgment reversed, with direction.

All the Justices concur. Divorce and alimony. Before Judge Jones. Stephens superior court. November 19, 1912. "McMillan & Erwin, for plaintiff in errór. Á. Q-. & Julian McCurry and Claude Bond, contra

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

Related

Dyal v. Dyal
157 S.E.2d 274 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Walker v. Walker
74 S.E.2d 66 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
A. A. A. Highway Express Inc. v. Hagler
34 S.E.2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Newton v. Newton
27 S.E.2d 31 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Allen v. Allen
22 S.E.2d 136 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Lowry v. Lowry
153 S.E. 11 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Trammell v. Shirley
145 S.E. 486 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)
Bank of Cumming v. Goolsby
129 S.E. 8 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Bullard v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
122 S.E. 75 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Phinizy v. Phinizy
114 S.E. 185 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 S.E. 120, 141 Ga. 404, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zachary-v-zachary-ga-1914.