Hogan v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 10 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | 14675. |
| Citation | 28 S.E.2d 74,196 Ga. 822 |
| Parties | HOGAN v. HOGAN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. An objection to evidence on the sole ground that it is irrelevant is not such an objection as would be reversible error to overrule.
2. Where the plaintiff while under cross-examination was interrogated as to whether she had threatened to go out and act as a street-walker, and the defendant testified that she did make such a statement, her character was thus put in issue, and the court did not err in allowing witnesses to testify in reference thereto.
3. Testimony of the defendant (husband), that he had done all within his power to reconcile the differences, was a conclusion of the witness, and the court did nor err in excluding it.
4. The request to give in charge to the jury an excerpt from a former decision of this court, where the court was discussing acts sufficient to constitute cruel treatment, was properly refused, where such excerpt employed illustrations involving facts different from those in the instant case.
5. The charge, 'such alimony should be awarded as to secure to her the same social standing, the same comforts and luxuries of life, which she probably would have enjoyed but for the enforced separation,' considered in connection with its context, was not subject to the criticism, the charge (a) is speculative, and a jury has no basis to determine the wife's future social status; (b) is misleading in that a jury could decide that the movant would be rich in short order or make more money than the record discloses, and predicate a verdict thereon; (c) is not a sound principle of law.
6. The evidence supported the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.
Thomas E. McLemore and Robt. T. Efurd, both or Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wm F. Buchanan and Mary J. Payne, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Mrs Arline Hogan filed against Ernest C. Hogan a petition for permanent alimony, which alleged substantially the following: Plaintiff and defendant were married on April 15, 1926, and lived as husband and wife until about a month before this suit was filed. Plaintiff worked and used her salary to help buy groceries and furnishings for the home. Plaintiff and defendant lived happily until recently when defendant became infatuated with another woman, and consulted astrological charts and learned that the birth date of plaintiff and his birth date do not coincide so as to make for a happy marriage. Under the above circumstances defendant ceased living with plaintiff as a husband, and is insisting that she vacate their home. Plaintiff barely earns enough to support herself, while defendant is a practicing lawyer and has a growing practice. Plaintiff has no property. Defendant is the owner of described property.
The defendant answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and alleging that he was forced to leave because of continuous nagging of plaintiff, which affected his health.
On the trial the evidence was conflicting as to who was at fault, and whether defendant left on account of the nagging, or in an effort to get rid of plaintiff.
The jury returned a verdict allowing plaintiff $25 per month until her remarriage, and awarding her the full equity of defendant in the home. The exception is to the overruling of the defendant's motion for new trial.
1. The first ground complains of the admission of evidence as follows: Objection: This is not such an objection to testimony as presents any question to the court. An objection that evidence is 'incompetent' or 'inadmissible' is not a good objection. Gordon v. Gilmore, 141 Ga. 347(2 a), 80 S.E. 1007. Neither is an objection 'that it is incompetent and inadmissible' well taken. Richardson v. State, 141 Ga. 782(2), 82 S.E. 134, 135. It has been held that an objection stating that it is 'incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant' is not a proper objection. Kirkland v. Ferris, 145 Ga. 93(4 a), 88 S.E. 680, 681. An objection on the sole ground that it is irrelevant is not such an objection as would be reversible error to overrule.
2. The second and third special grounds complain because one witness for the plaintiff was allowed to testify that her character was beyond reproach, and because the court permitted another witness to testify that her reputation was excellent, over the objection that the evidence was irrelevant and immaterial, and that the character of the plaintiff was not in issue. The plaintiff while under cross-examination by the defendant's counsel testified: 'As to whether I ever threatened to go out and act as a streetwalker--I certainly did not. I never made the statement to [defendant] * * * that 'I am going out and act as a streetwalker; and if I have a child, I will name it after you.'' Furthermore, when the defendant took the stand he testified that the plaintiff did make the above and other similar threats to him. We hold that the plaintiff's character had been put in issue by the defendant's testimony. In so ruling we have merely assumed that the objections to the testimony and the assignments of error were complete.
3. In ground 4 the movant complains that the court erred in sustaining an objection by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...No ruling was ever obtained upon the constitutional issue raised in this court and this court will not consider it. See Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822(1), 28 S.E.2d 74; Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574(2), 87 S.E.2d 387; Wilson v. State, 212 Ga. 157(4), 91 S.E.2d 16; Hicks v. State, 216 ......
-
Reynolds v. Reynolds, 21295
...75 Ga. 753; Montgomery v. Montgomery, 180 Ga. 120 (177 S.E 337); Gaulding v. Gaulding, 184 Ga. 689, 691(3) (192 S.E. 724); Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822 (28 S.E.2d 74). 16. In ground 87 of the amended motion for new trial the defendant assigns as error an alleged improper remark of counsel fo......
-
Ryle v. Sliz
...v. Miller, 142 Ga.App. 331(1), 235 S.E.2d 773; Gwinnett Commercial Bank v. Blake, 151 Ga.App. 578, 581, 260 S.E.2d 523; Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822(1), 28 S.E.2d 74; Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847(4), 55 S.E.2d 359; Greyhound Corp. v. Clough, 211 Ga. 574(2), 87 S.E.2d 387, Dixie Belle Mil......
-
Thomason v. Harper
...necessary to permit meaningful review of its merits by the trial court and, therefore, was properly overruled. Hogan v. Hogan, 196 Ga. 822, 824, 28 S.E.2d 74 (1943); Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 560, 561(7), 156 S.E.2d 901 (1967); Williams v. Harris, 105 Ga.App. 252(1), 124 S.E.2d 429 (1962); Si......