McAfee v. Martin, 18651
| Decision Date | 13 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 18651,18651 |
| Citation | 211 Ga. 14,83 S.E.2d 605 |
| Parties | Lena B. McAFEE v. James M. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. M. Reed, Marietta, Leon Bling, Cumming, Ben F. Smith, Marietta, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
On April 20, 1954, Mrs. Lena B. McAfee filed in Cobb County Superior Court a petition for habeas corpus, against Mr. and Mrs. James M. Martin, in which it was alleged that defendants were illegally detaining the eight month old son of plaintiff; that plaintiff had demanded possession of the child, which demand had been refused; that the detention and restraint of the child was illegal; and that plaintiff had not by contract or otherwise released her rights in the matter. The writ issued on April 20, returnable on April 24, and the hearing continued until April 30. Defendants filed a plea of res judicata and motion to dismiss, in which they alleged that on January 11, 1954, a petition for habeas corpus was filed with the Ordinary of Cobb County by Mrs. James M. Martin against Ross Jackson involving the same child; that the ordinary, on March 1, 1954, passed an order awarding the care, custody, and control of the infant to Mrs. James M. Martin, one of the defendants in the present action; that the ordinary was still holding the matter within the breast of his court; that the present plaintiff, Mrs. Lena B. McAfee, was a witness in the proceeding before the ordinary; and that since she did not file any pleadings or claim of any nature, she is now estopped from asserting any further claim to her child. It was further alleged that said judgment of the ordinary was not appealed or excepted to in any manner, and that plaintiff was therefore bound by the judgment of the ordinary, she being a witness in the former hearing. Copies of the petition filed with the ordinary by Mrs. James M. Martin, the answer of Ross Jackson, and a judgment of the Ordinary of Cobb County, Georgia, were attached to the plea. The bill of exceptions recites that, 'after full argument by counsel for the respective parties and without any introduction of evidence or consideration of the answer filed by the defendants, the presiding judge * * * did * * * sustain the plea on each and every ground thereof and dismiss the habeas corpus proceedings.' The exception is to this judgment. Held:
1. A judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in a habeas corpus proceeding involving the custody of a child, which is not excepted to, cannot be deprived of its finality by a recitation therein that 'the cause is retained for orders of this court,' since no one court can retain exclusive jurisdiction of the custody of children in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camp v. Camp
...207 Ga. 637, 67 S.E.2d 650; Hanson v. Stegall, 208 Ga. 403, 67 S.E.2d 109; Stout v. Pate, 209 Ga. 786, 75 S.E.2d 748; McAfee v. Martin, 211 Ga. 14, 83 S.E.2d 605; Goodloe v. Goodloe, 211 Ga. 894, 89 S.E.2d 4. The children here being 6 and and 8 years old, respectively, the court did not abu......
-
Goodloe v. Goodloe
...court which has been followed in Hanson v. Stegall, 208 Ga. 403, 67 S.E.2d 109; Stout v. Pate, 209 Ga. 786, 75 S.E.2d 748; McAfee v. Martin, 211 Ga. 14, 83 S.E.2d 605; Gibbs v. North, 211 Ga. 231, 84 S.E.2d 833, supra, this court held [207 Ga. 637, 63 S.E.2d 651]: 'Where children are involv......
-
Anthony v. Anthony, 19291
...Ga. 403, 67 S.E.2d 109; Stout v. Pate, 209 Ga. 786, 75 S.E.2d 748; Barrentine v. Barrentine, 210 Ga. 749, 82 S.E.2d 857; McAfee v. Martin, 211 Ga. 14, 83 S.E.2d 605; Broome v. Broome, 212 Ga. 132, 91 S.E.2d 18. The inclusion in the order of a provision that the minor child must not be taken......
-
Capitol Funds, Inc. v. Arlen Realty, Inc.
...was not pursued at trial. It notes that the tenant has the burden of proof on the affirmative defense of res judicata, McAfee v. Martin, 211 Ga. 14, 83 S.E.2d 605 (1954), and that on summary judgment the tenant must prove that there is no material dispute of fact, resolving all inferences a......