Grayson v. Grayson
| Decision Date | 14 July 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21272,21272 |
| Citation | 217 Ga. 133,121 S.E.2d 34 |
| Parties | Ruth Stanford GRAYSON v. William L. GRAYSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where parties to a judicial proceeding enter into an agreement settling the questions involved, which agreement is signed in open court by the attorneys and the trial judge, the parties consenting thereto will not be heard to question its validity on the ground that it did not contain formal words of adjudication such as 'considered, ordered and adjudged,' or 'decreed,' or other formal words indicating that it was the judgment of the court.
2. Where temporary custody of a minor child has been awarded to the husband in a custody and alimony proceeding brought by the wife, an entry of dismissal of the original petition by the wife was ineffectual to dismiss the proceeding.
Mrs. Ruth S. Grayson, plaintiff in error, filed her petition in the Superior Court of Chatham County against her husband, William L. Grayson, praying for temporary and permanent alimony, custody of their children, and other relief. A rule nisi was issued pursuant to prayers contained in the petition, and at the interlocutory hearing held pursuant thereto on March 13, 1961, the court after hearing some evidence adjourned. Subsequently to the adjournment, the attorneys, on behalf of the parties, entered into an agreement which was signed by the trial judge on March 15, 1961. This paper provided for temporary alimony for the wife and, among other things, provided that the husband should have temporary custody of their son and that the wife should have temporary custody of their daughter.
Subsequently counsel for the plaintiff in error entered a dismissal of the first case, and, on April 13, 1961, brought a new suit for temporary and permanent alimony, child custody and support. The second suit also contained prayers for a rule nisirequiring the defendant in error to appear and show cause why the prayers of the petition should not be granted. A motion was filed by the defendant in error to dismiss the rule nisi issued by the court pursuant to prayers of the petition, on the ground that the agreement entered into between the attorneys, on behalf of the parties, in the first suit was a valid interlocutory order, of full force and effect, and binding upon both parties.
The motion to dismiss the rule nisi was sustained by the trial court on May 1, 1961, in the following language:
It is to this order that the plaintiff in error now excepts.
Joseph B. Bergen, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Lewis, Wylly & Javetz, Savannah, for defendants in error.
1. The question presented by the plaintiff in error, that the order was not in such form as to constitute a valid judgment, is not material to a determination of the issue before us, because she is estopped by her conduct to question its validity.
'Parties to stipulations and agreements entered into in the course of judicial proceedings are estopped to take positions inconsistent therewith, in the absence of fraud or mistake.' 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 120, p. 384. See also Mehrtens v. Knight, 29 Ga.App. 390, 115 S.E. 506.
'No litigant will be heard to complain of an order or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hurt v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc.
...435 S.E.2d 619; Duncan v. Ball, supra at 750-751, 324 S.E.2d 477. 16. (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Grayson v. Grayson, 217 Ga. 133, 135(1), 121 S.E.2d 34 (1961). 17. Id. 18. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Riverdale Pools & Constr. v. Evans, 210 Ga.App. 127(2), 435 S.E.2d 501 (1......
-
Blakely v. Couch
...litigants of consent verdicts and judgment based thereon. Webster v. Dundee Mtg. etc. Co., 93 Ga. 278(1), 20 S.E. 310; Grayson v. Grayson, 217 Ga. 133, 121 S.E.2d 34; Alford v. Smith, 224 Ga. 802, 164 S.E.2d 2. We recognize the validity of the doctrine of 'binding precedent' as stated in Br......
-
Barrett v. Manus, 22277
...In Jones v. Jones, 209 Ga. 861, 865, 76 S.E.2d 801; Wetherington v. Wetherington, 216 Ga. 325, 116 S.E.2d 234; and Grayson v. Grayson, 217 Ga. 133, 135, 121 S.E.2d 34; cited by counsel for the mother, the question before the court was the validity of the judgment sought to be set aside, and......
-
Thompson v. Thompson, 31343
...v. Crosby, 209 Ga. 896, 76 S.E.2d 769 (1953); Wetherington v. Wetherington, 216 Ga. 287, 116 S.E.2d 234 (1960); Grayson v. Grayson, 217 Ga. 133, 121 S.E.2d 34 (1961). However, as the rule states, it is not applicable if the complaining party's consent to the agreement was obtained by fraud,......