Anthony v. Anthony, 19291
| Decision Date | 14 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 19291,19291 |
| Citation | 92 S.E.2d 857,212 Ga. 356 |
| Parties | Mildred Steadham ANTHONY v. John Horace ANTHONY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
An award of custody of a minor child in a divorce decree is a final adjudication of the right of custody on the facts then existing, and any attempt on the part of the trial court to retain jurisdiction of the case, and make the award only temporary, is ineffective. Any further proceeding relating to the custody of the child must be brought in the county of the residence of the person to whom custody has been awarded.
On October 17, 1953, a decree of divorce was entered in the Superior Court of Floyd County in the case of Mrs. Mildred Steadham Anthony against John Horace Anthony. The decree incorporated an agreement made by the parties in regard to custody of the minor children and alimony, each party retaining the custody of one of the two minor children, and the wife being awarded alimony for herself and the minor child in her custody. The decree recited: 'However, the court specifically retains jurisdiction of said children and the right to control the future possession and control of said children, * * * and said children shall not be taken out of the jurisdiction of this court without leave of the court so to do.'
On September 30, 1955, John Horace Anthony filed a petition, styled in the same cause as the divorce action, in which he prayed that 'the order and judgment of the court * * * be amended' to give custody to him of the child whose custody had been given to the mother. There is no allegation in the petition as to the residence of the mother.
Mrs. Anthony filed a sworn plea to the jurisdiction, in which she alleged that she does not reside in Floyd County, but is a resident of Fulton County, and the Superior Court of Fulton County has jurisdiction of the case. She filed her general and special demurrers on the grounds, among others, that it is not alleged that she is a resident of Floyd County; that the motion sets forth no grounds whereby the decree should be modified; that the term of the court having expired at which the final decree was entered in the divorce case, the court is without authority to change and modify the decree upon a motion filed in the cause.
The trial judge heard no evidence on the question of jurisdiction, but overruled the plea of the respondent, and overruled her general and special demurrers. The bill of exceptions assigns error on these rulings.
Maddox & Maddox, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Fullbright & Duffey, Harl C. Duffey,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mongerson v. Mongerson
...issue as an attempt by the trial court to retain jurisdiction of the case and, as such, it is wholly ineffective. Anthony v. Anthony, 212 Ga. 356, 358, 92 S.E.2d 857 (1956). Accordingly, the case is remanded to the trial court for removal of that language from the Judgment affirmed in part ......
-
Perry v. Perry
...one on the facts then existing, and any attempt by the trial judge to retain jurisdiction of the child is a nullity. Anthony v. Anthony, 212 Ga. 356, 92 S.E.2d 857, and citations. 2. When a divorce is granted between the parents of a minor child, it is well settled by numerous decisions of ......
-
Howard v. Sharpe, S96A0125
...("a court cannot attempt to retain jurisdiction [in a child custody case] after its final order"); compare also Anthony v. Anthony, 212 Ga. 356, 92 S.E.2d 857 (1956). Although the majority has determined that the habeas court's order mandates that Howard obtain permission from any judge of ......
-
Martin v. Hendon, 24541
...its finality, nor retain exclusive jurisdiction over their custody * * *' Burton v. Furcron, 207 Ga. 637, 63 S.E.2d 650; Anthony v. Anthony, 212 Ga. 356, 92 S.E.2d 857; Pirkle v. Pirkle, 212 Ga. 752(1), 95 S.E.2d 663; Camp v. Camp, 213 Ga. 65(3), 97 S.E.2d 125; Chumley v. Irwin, 213 Ga. 537......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...at 467. 99. Id. at 426-27, 631 S.E.2d at 466-67; see Scott v. Scott, 276 Ga. 372, 578 S.E.2d 876 (2003). 100. See Anthony v. Anthony, 212 Ga. 356, 357-58, 92 S.E.2d 857, 858 (1956). 101. See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 252 Ga. 46, 48-49, 311 S.E.2d 456, 458-59 (1984). 102. Curtis, 279 Ga. App. at......