Hammock v. Hammock
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CANDLER |
| Citation | Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 15 (Ga. 1953) |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 18180,18180 |
| Parties | HAMMOCK v. HAMMOCK et al. |
Brackett & Brackett, R. B. Pullen, Attlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Clark Ray, Fraser & Shelfer, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Mrs. Ellene Hammock instituted contempt proceedings in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Edward M. Hammock and Julius A. Hammock. Her case was heard on January 6, 1953, and the evidence shows the following facts: Mrs. Hammock and the respondent, Edward M. Hammock, were divorced in Fulton County on May 30, 1952. Custody of their three minor children was awarded by the presiding judge to her, but no injunction of any character was granted. She took possession of the children on June 6, 1952, and carried them to her home in Spalding County. Her former husband and his brother, Julius A. Hammock, came to her home a few days later and demanded possession of them. She refused to comply with their demand and exhibited to them a certified copy of the order placing custody of the children in her. Without her consent and over her protest, the respondents took the children and returned them to the home of their paternal grandfather in Fulton County, where she and they had resided for several years prior to May 30, 1952. The children have not been returned to Mrs. Hammock, but are presently at their father's home in Brunswick, Georgia. The respondents were on January 6, 1953, adjudged in contempt of the court and sentenced to serve a term of 20 days in the common jail of Fulton County. The contempt judgment further provided that they might purge themselves of the contempt, and relieve themselves of the punishment imposed therefor, by returning the children to Mrs. Hammock at her home in Spalding County within 5 days therefrom. The contempt judgment was modified and set aside by Judge Andrews on January 16, 1953, and, by the same order, he overruled and denied the plaintiff's petition for a contempt judgment. It is recited in the bill of exceptions and certified to be true, that Judge Andrews, at the time of signing the second judgment, orally stated to counsel for the parties that he had reached the conclusion that he was without authority as a matter of law to hold the respondents in contempt of his court for the act complained of. Mrs. Hammock excepted to the judgment of January 16, 1953, and sued out a writ of error. Held:
1. In cases where divorce is...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Griggers v. Bryant
...though the mother had been awarded legal custody. After thorough consideration of this case we overrule our decisions in Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 [239 Ga. 245] S.E.2d 15 (1953) and those cases that have subsequently followed it, Adams v. Adams, 221 Ga. 710, 146 S.E.2d 759 (1966);......
-
Griggs v. Griggs
...to entertain proceedings to that end.' Goodrum v. Goodrum, 202 Ga. 135, 42 S.E.2d 450, 451. See also, in this connection, Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 15.' Moore v. Berry, 210 Ga. 136(3), 78 S.E.2d 6; Gore v. Gore, 217 Ga. 478(1), 123 S.E.2d 10. One enumeration asserts that it......
-
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 23396
...hence, there is no merit to the contention of appellant on this ground. Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 103 S.E.2d 565; Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 15. 3. The circumstances in which a trial judge may be disqualified are set out in Code Ann. § 24-102 (Ga.L.1935, p. 136; 1943, p. 32......
-
Gore v. Gore, 21466
...Wilson v. Chumney, 214 Ga. 120, 103 S.E.2d 552, 553. For like rulings, see Brown v. Smith, 150 Ga. 111(2), 102 S.E. 813; Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751(2), 76 S.E.2d 15; and Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 102 S.E.2d 565. But in the instant case the order which confers specified visitation righ......