Hayes v. Hayes
Decision Date | 13 November 1940 |
Docket Number | 13321. |
Citation | 11 S.E.2d 764,191 Ga. 237 |
Parties | HAYES v. HAYES. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 20, 1940.
Syllabus by the Court.
(a) This statement of law defining alimony contemplates an 'allowance' by a judgment or decree of court, and not a mere provision for support in a private contract between the parties. Accordingly, a suit on such an alleged contract is not a suit for alimony, or an 'alimony case' within the constitutional provision relating to jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
(b) Under the foregoing ruling, the Court of Appeals, and not the Supreme Court, has jurisdiction of the present case.
Mrs. Marjorie Morgan Hayes filed suit in the superior court of Fulton County against Mose S. Hayes, her former husband, praying judgment for amounts claimed by her under a maintenance agreement entered into between them on September 1, 1936. The defendant demurred to the petition, on general and special grounds. The court overruled the general grounds of demurrer, but sustained the special grounds and struck one paragraph of the petition and a portion of one of the prayers. To this judgment the defendant excepted. It is recited in the bill of exceptions: 'This case is brought to the Supreme Court because the question involved is one of alimony and is a question [of] which this court has exclusive jurisdiction.' The petition alleged, in substance: The plaintiff and the defendant were husband and wife until January 3, 1939, on which date a judgment granting a total divorce between them was rendered in the superior court of Fulton County. On September 1, 1936, plaintiff and defendant were living in a bona fide state of separation, and on that date they entered into a contract as follows:
The petition further alleged: That under the terms of the contract the defendant is due the plaintiff the sum of $275, and will be due other sums monthly in the future. The prayers were to recover the sum alleged as past due, and such other and further sums as may become due 'up to and including date of judgment,' together with interest; and for process.
The grounds of demurrer, which the court overruled, were as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Francis v. Francis
...Mesler v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 188 Mich. 195, 154 N.W. 63 (1915); Miller v. Miller, 88 Idaho 57, 396 P.2d 476 (1964); Hayes v. Hayes, 191 Ga. 237, 11 S.E.2d 764 (1940); Dickey v. Dickey, 154 Md. 675, 141 A. 387, 58 A.L.R. 634 (1928); Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E.2d 240 (1964). The q......
-
Powell v. Powell
... ... has ever defined the word 'deed' as used in these ... sections, it has referred to 'contracts' as provided ... by § 30-211. Hayes v. Hayes, 191 Ga. 237, 240, 11 ... S.E.2d 764. See Watkins v. Watkins, 64 Ga.App. 344, ... 347, 13 S.E.2d 100. Being called upon to give to it the ... ...
-
Martin v. Martin, 45492
...with the jurisdiction of the court are not controlling insofar as a construction of the Bankruptcy Act is concerned. See Hayes v. Hayes, 191 Ga. 237, 241, 11 S.E.2d 764. (b) In Green v. Beaumont, 179 Ga. 804, 806, 177 S.E. 572, the Supreme Court considered the bankruptcy statute where the l......
-
Bey v. Bey, 55126
...death or remarriage in lieu of temporary and permanent alimony. See Caudle v. Caudle, 181 Ga. 144, 181 S.E. 669 (1935); Hayes v. Hayes, 191 Ga. 237, 11 S.E.2d 764 (1940); Hayes v. Hayes, 65 Ga.App. 222, 15 S.E.2d 626 The agreement, here, provided that it was ". . . in full and complete sett......
-
Georgia's Constitutional Scheme for State Appellate Jurisdiction
...ed.). 83. See Thompson v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 214 Ga. 130, 103 S.E.2d 555 (1958). 84. O.C.G.A. 19-6-1 (a). 85. See Hayes v. Hayes, 191 Ga. 237, 240, 111 S.E.2d 764, 766(1940). 86. See Jost v. Jost, 179 Ga. App. 1, 345 S.E.2d 115 (1986). 87. See Perry v. Perry, 213 Ga. 847, 849, 1102 S.E......