Herrin v. Graham, 17924
| Decision Date | 15 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17924,17924 |
| Citation | 209 Ga. 281,71 S.E.2d 550 |
| Parties | HERRIN et al. v. GRAHAM. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kimzey & Kimzey, Cornelia, for plaintiffs in error.
Bess Blake, Nashville, Tenn., Glenn W. Ellard, Ellard & Frankum, Clarkesville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
Plaintiffs in error instituted this statutory proceeding, seeking to adopt Barbara Virginia Barnett, alleged to have been born February 17, 1943, and then residing with them, upon the ground that the child had been abandoned by her father and mother. Mrs. Mabel Graham filed an answer, alleging that she is the mother of said child, but denying that she had ever abandoned her daughter, and further alleging that the child had been secretly taken out of the State of Tennessee by persons unknown to her, without her consent, and that she had been unable to locate her child until a few days prior to the filing of her answer and protest. While the bill of exceptions recites that at said hearing 'petitioners contended that so much of the act of 1941, Ga.L.1941, p. 300, Code Ann.Supp. § 74-413, which provides that 'The court at such time shall give consideration to the investigation report and to the recommendations therein contained,' was illegal and contrary to the Constitution and laws of this State' upon the ground that it did not provide them with any opportunity to cross-examine under oath the persons furnishing the information contained in the report, and 'petitioners now contend that said statutory provisions are illegal and contrary to law and to the provisions of the Constitution'--it is further recited in this same exception that 'Counsel for neither side requested an order to see said report of the State Department of Public Welfare and the court did not state or intimate whether or not he considered said report in any way,' and no ruling of the trial court was invoked on this question, and the only reason given for this court having jurisdiction of this writ of error is that 'same involves custody of a minor child'. Held:
1. 'Where it is sought to invoke a ruling by the Supreme Court on a constitutional question, the question must have been raised in the trial court and a ruling made thereon and the case brought to the Supreme Court for review.' Loftin v. Southern Security Co., 162 Ga. 730(3), 134 S.E. 760, 761. See also Aiken v. Richardson, 207 Ga. 735, 64 S.E.2d 54.
2. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hendrix v. Hunter, 20357
...jurisdiction thereof.' Criswell v. Jones, 187 Ga. 55, 199 S.E. 804. See also Respess v. Lites, 206 Ga. 8, 55 S.E.2d 602; Herrin v. Graham, 209 Ga. 281, 71 S.E.2d 550. Transferred to the Court of All the Justices concur. ...
-
Moore v. State, s. 56242
...Constitutional questions cannot be considered on appeal unless the issue was raised and ruled on in the trial court. Herrin v. Graham, 209 Ga. 281, 71 S.E.2d 550. In Case No. 56243, the defendant raised the same constitutional question in her motion in arrest of judgment. Similarly a consti......
-
Herrin v. Graham, 34250
...this case to this court, excised the attempted constitutional question and gave a brief history of the case. See Herrin v. Graham, 209 Ga. 281, 71 S.E.2d 550. The only questions with which we are here confronted are the validity of the trial court's judgment denying the prayers of the petit......