Dade v. Dade, 19802
| Decision Date | 11 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19802,19802 |
| Citation | 213 Ga. 533,100 S.E.2d 181 |
| Parties | Ralph E. DADE v. Dorothy Laird DADE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
C. W. Buchanan, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, James K. Rankin, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
On May 31, 1952, Ralph E. Dade sued Dorothy Laird Dade in Fulton County for divorce, alleging cruel treatment as his ground therefor. Answering the petition, the defendant denied its alleged acts of cruelty, and by cross action, in which she prayed for divorce and alimony, alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of habitual intoxication and of wilfully inflicting acts of cruelty on her. The defendant later amended her cross-action by alleging that she had paid stated amounts of the purchase money for certain lands which she and the plaintiff had acquired together but in his name; and there is a prayer that her interest in such property be determined and fixed by decree. Her amendment was allowed on April 9, 1956, subject to demurrer, but no demurrer was interposed thereto. The jury granted the defendant a divorce on her cross-action, awarded her, as permanent alimony, an undivided one-half interest in a house and lot at 1810 South Gordon Street in Atlanta, Georgia, and certain household furniture and household equipment, and removed the plaintiff's disabilities. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial as amended was denied, and the exception is to that judgment. Held:
1. The verdict is amply supported by evidence and it has the approval of the trial judge. Hence, the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.
2. One of the special grounds of the motion for new trial alleges that the judgment rendered does not follow the verdict, and that it is for this reason 'contrary to law, harmful and prejudicial to * * * movant,' and because of such error a new trial should be granted. This ground of the motion presents no question for decision. Only questions respecting the validity of the verdict can be raised by a motion for new trial; and a contention that the judgment or decree in this case does not follow the verdict is not one respecting its validity. If the judgment did not in fact follow the verdict, the plaintiff should have moved to remold it so as to conform to the verdict, and on a refusal to do so a direct exception to this court should have been taken. Hubbard v. Whatley, 200 Ga. 751, 38 S.E.2d 738; Smith v. Smith, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Poteet
...trial judge, the judgment will be affirmed. M. & G. Textile Co. v. West Point-Pepperell, 126 Ga.App. 43, 189 S.E.2d 878; Dade v. Dade, 213 Ga. 533, 100 S.E.2d 181. The judgment for the defendants is supported by the evidence and is in accordance with the law. Therefore, enumerations 1, 2, 3......
-
Wilson v. Pickels
...weigh the evidence and in fact are precluded from doing so. Strong v. State, 232 Ga. 294, 298, 206 S.E.2d 461 (1974); Dade v. Dade, 213 Ga. 533(1), 100 S.E.2d 181 (1957). In considering the motions for directed verdict and for judgment n.o.v., this court must view the evidence in the light ......
-
Sanders v. Cowart
...S.E.2d 629); the jury resolves conflict in testimony and this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Dade v. Dade, 213 Ga. 533(1), 100 S.E.2d 181." Peters v. Davis, 214 Ga.App. 885(1), 449 S.E.2d 624. In the case sub judice, there is no indication that Dr. Cowart's eff......
-
Morgan v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank
...its judgment for that of the jury, particularly where there is substantial evidence in favor of the jury's verdict. Dade v. Dade, 213 Ga. 533(1), 100 S.E.2d 181; Carmichael Tile Co. v. McClelland, 213 Ga. 656, 661, 100 S.E.2d 902; Thompson v. Hill, 143 Ga.App. 272, 276, 238 S.E.2d 271. We f......