Buxton v. Hooker
| Decision Date | 11 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20061,20061 |
| Citation | 104 S.E.2d 437,214 Ga. 271 |
| Parties | Evelyn BUXTON v. John Arnold HOOKER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Harry N. Ginsberg, Aaron Kravitch, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Shelby Myrick, Myrick, Myrick & Richardson, Savannah, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The marriage between John Arnold Hooker and Evelyn Hooker was dissolved by divorce in the Superior Court of Chatham County on March 12, 1945. The verdict awarded $10 per week for the support of their one-year-old son, Arthur W. Hooker, and required the father to pay the amount so awarded weekly to the mother until their son reached his majority. Permanent custody of the child was placed in the mother with certain visitation rights in the father. To these judgments there was no exception. Subsequently and after her marriage to Grady B. Buxton, the mother filed an application in the same court for leave to remove the child beyond the limits of this State. On the hearing of that application, the parties agreed that the father would relinquish his visitation rights in consideration of the mother's agreement to waive further payments of the alimony awarded for the support of their minor child. On this agreement, the judge by an order, which was granted on July 18, 1947, modified the original alimony judgment so as to relieve the father from any liability to pay future installments of alimony for the support of his child. Alleging that the father had not paid any of the alimony installments due their child since July 18, 1947, the mother, Mrs. Buxton, instituted this proceeding to vacate and set aside the modifying order of July 18, 1947, and to recover a judgment against the father for the accumulated alimony due their child which was then unpaid and in default. As the defendant in that proceeding, the father demurred on the ground that no cause of action for any of the relief sought was stated by the petition. His demurrer was sustained, and the exception is to that judgment. Held:
1. The decree awarding permanent alimony for the support of the minor child of the parties to this cause was based on the verdict which a jury rendered in their divorce and alimony suit on March 12, 1945; and since it was not excepted to and therefore became absolute, the court was without power or jurisdiction to modify its terms on July 18, 1947, even with the consent of the child's parents. Ethridge v. Echols, 212 Ga. 597, 94 S.E.2d 377; Swain v. Wells, 210 Ga. 394, 80 S.E.2d 321; Martin v. Martin, 209 Ga. 850, 76 S.E.2d 390; Burch v. Kenmore, 206 Ga. 277, 56 S.E.2d 508; Varble v. Hughes, 205 Ga. 29, 52 S.E.2d 303; Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 100, 14 S.E.2d 680; Glaze v. Strength, 186 Ga. 613, 198 S.E. 721. And, since a judgment rendered by a court without power or jurisdiction to do so is a nullity and will be vacated and set aside in a proceeding brought for that purpose (Code, § 110-709; Jordan v. J. A. Callaway & rendered on July 18, 1947, which rendered on July 15, 1947, which purports to modify the permanent alimony judgment of March 12, 1945, being void for want of power or jurisdiction in the court to grant it, constitutes no defense to the plaintiff's action to collect the amount awarded for the support of the child by the jury's verdict, payment of which had not been made and was in arrears at the time her suit was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulcay v. Murray
...equitable relief, such as injunction * * *.' Similar pronouncements are found in Jeffers v. Ware, 72 Ga. 135, and Buxton v. Hooker, 214 Ga. 271, 272, 104 S.E.2d 437. The averments of the petition that the plaintiff was the lawful incumbent of the office of First Assistant Chief of the city ......
-
Gf/Legacy Dallas, Inc. v. Juneau Const. Co., A06A2234.
...emphasis in original). 5. See Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun of America, 286 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir.2002). 6. See generally Buxton v. Hooker, 214 Ga. 271, 272(1), 104 S.E.2d 437 (1958); see also Cheuvront v. Carter, 263 Ga.App. 837, 589 S.E.2d 609 (2003) (default judgment properly set aside where plai......
-
Fricks v. Fricks, 20470
...of permanent alimony decrees as applied before enactment of this act must be followed in the instant case. See Buxton v. Hooker, 214 Ga. 271, 273(2), 104 S.E.2d 437. The general rule thus applicable is that a decree awarding permanent alimony cannot be modified or revised by the trial judge......
-
Levine v. Seley, 38854
...235, 71 S.E.2d 639; Corriher v. McElroy, 209 Ga. 885(1), 76 S.E.2d 782; Swain v. Wells, 210 Ga. 394, 397, 80 S.E.2d 321; Buxton v. Hooker, 214 Ga. 271, 104 S.E.2d 437. If the parents cannot, by positive action, change or alter the judgment as against the minor children, they should not be i......