Mooney v. Mooney
| Decision Date | 21 February 1946 |
| Docket Number | 15407. |
| Citation | 37 S.E.2d 195,200 Ga. 395 |
| Parties | MOONEY v. MOONEY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
On October 1, 1945, Mrs. Annie E. Monney filed a petition against her husband in the superior court of Fulton County, alleging: W. S. Mooney is the defendant herein resident of said county. The petitioner and the defendant are man and wife, and 'they were married December 27, lived together until January 1, 1945, at which time they separated,' the petitioner being forced to leave the defendant on account of his conduct. The petitioner has worked hard and helped the defendant earn all the money that he now possesses, said money being held in his name and represented by several hundred dollars worth of United States Government bonds and approximately $3,000 deposited in the Citizens and Southern National Bank. The defendant has tried to conceal said money by depositing it in said bank in the name of Charles Lee Obert, which name the defendant signs to checks when he wishes to withdraw said money. He has threatened to take all of said money and leave in the event your petitioner should try to get her share or take court action to protect her rights in the premises, and the defendant will take said property and leave the jurisdiction of the court unless he is restrained by the court from so doing. Unless the defendant is enjoined from withdrawing the funds in the bank, removing the Government securities, or in any way changing the status of the property, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury. There is no property which can now be scheduled, but the defendant has farm lands and real estate in the State of Tennessee, their location being now unknown. There are no children as a result of this marriage. The petitioner is a resident of Georgia and has been for more than twelve months. The defendant is a strong and healthy man, a skilled worker, and employed at the Gate City Auction Company, in Atlanta, Georgia, where he earns the sum of $45 per week as a furniture repair man.
The petition contained the following prayers: that the defendant be enjoined and restrained from changing the status of his property, and from withdrawing the money from the bank; for temporary and permanent alimony, with attorney's fees for total divorce, and for process.
On October 22, 1945, the judge unconditionally overruled the defendant's oral motion to dismiss the petition, the grounds of the motion being as follows: 'Because the plaintiff by her pleadings shows no good cause of action therein, and because the allegations of said petition show no cause of action against the defendant for divorce, alimony or attorney fees, and there is no cause of action set out in said petition.' On November 7, the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions complaining of the order overruling this motion. The judge on the same date certified that, 'the foregoing bill of exceptions is true and contains or specifies all the records material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of except plaintiff's amendment allowed by the court on October 25 1945.' Compare Johnson v. Giraud, 191 Ga 577(1), 13 S.E.2d 365. The clerk of the trial court transmitted a certified copy of such amendment as a part of the record in the case. It appeared that this amendment was unconditionally 'allowed and ordered filed' on October 25, 1945, which amendment was as follows:
'Comes now the plaintiff in the abovestated case, by leave of the court first had, and amends her petition heretofore filed on the first day of October, 1945, by adding thereto immediately following the paragraph ten of said petition another paragraph to be designated paragraph eleven.
'11. As stated in paragraph two of plaintiff's petition, she was forced to separate from the defendant on account of his conduct toward her, evidenced by cursing, nagging, quarreling, threatening, and browbeating your petitioner constantly. This treatment made petitioner very nervous, and emotionally upset. Petitioner lost her appetite for food, lost weight, and her physical condition was undermined as a result of the conduct of the defendant. The defendant made threats against petitioner calculated to frighten any normal or reasonable person, in that he continually threatened to do bodily injury to her, all of which petitioner believed he would do and which gave her reasonable cause for fear to the extent that she could not continue to live with him with due regard for her life, limb, and health, and on January 1st, 1945, she separated from him and has not since lived with him or condoned the acts of cruelty complained of herein.
'Wherefore petitioner prays that this her amendment be allowed and ordered filed as a part of the record in said case, and that the same be considered together with the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kappers v. DeKalb County Bd. of Health
...dismiss an appeal where it affirmatively appears that ... a decision would be of no benefit to the complaining party. Mooney v. Mooney, 200 Ga. 395 (37 SE2d 195) ... The fact that ... appellants might possibly derive some future benefit from a favorable adjudication on an abstract question ......
-
Holliday v. Pope
... ... Am.Rep. 572; Livingston v. Barnett, 193 Ga. 640, 19 ... S.E.2d 385, 386; Hughes v. Purcell, 198 Ga. 666(1), ... 32 S.E.2d 392; Mooney v. Mooney, 200 Ga. 395(2), 37 ... S.E.2d 195. The demurrer to the petition as finally amended, ... renewing all previous grounds of demurrer and ... ...
-
Goodyear v. Trust Co. Bank
...187 S.E.2d 275 (1972); see also, National Council of Jewish Women v. Cobb County, --- Ga. ---, 275 S.E.2d 315 (1981); Mooney v. Mooney, 200 Ga. 395, 37 S.E.2d 195 (1946); Nye Odorless Incinerating Corp. v. Felton, 172 Ga. 792, 159 S.E. 267 If Goodyear no longer owns land on Sea Island, all ......
-
Chastain v. Baker, 42888
...dismiss an appeal where it affirmatively appears that ... a decision would be of no benefit to the complaining party. Mooney v. Mooney, 200 Ga. 395 (37 SE2d 195) ... The fact that the appellants might possibly derive some future benefit from a favorable adjudication on an abstract question ......