Morris v. Sheffield
| Decision Date | 07 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 19988,19988 |
| Parties | Lorraine Fitch MORRIS v. Wade Morton SHEFFIELD, Sr. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The judgment under review in this case was not error for any reason assigned.
Lorraine Fitch Sheffield filed suit for divorce and alimony in De Kalb Superior Court against Wade Morton Sheffield, Sr., and prayed for custody of their minor child, Wade Morton Sheffield, Jr. A divorce was obtained on September 16, 1955. The parties, prior to the divorce decree, entered into an agreement for the purpose of settling all questions as to alimony, custody, support and dower rights and property rights. This agreement was approved by the court and made the judgment of the court. The agreement, thus made the judgment of the court, provided stated sums to be paid as alimony for the support of the wife and stated sums for the support of the minor child. It was provided in the agreement 'That the custody of the minor child, Wade Morton Sheffield, Jr., be in the plaintiff subject to limitations hereinafter imposed.
'That the defendant, Wade Morton Sheffield, Sr., shall have the child for two weeks vacation period during the summer commencing during the summer of 1956 and likewise every summer thereafter until the child reaches eighteen years of age, dies, becomes self-supporting, or until further order of this court.
'It being agreed that neither party is to take the child without the limitations or bounds of the State of Georgia unless especially authorized by an order of this court (except during the aforesaid vacation periods).'
On May 10, 1956, Lorraine Fitch Sheffield Morris filed her petition in De Kalb Superior Court, in which she alleged that on April 28, 1956, she married Carl Morris, an officer in the United States Army, who had been ordered to report for duty in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii. She sought to have the original decree as to custody modified so as to permit her to remove the child beyond the limits of the State of Georgia. On August 2, 1956, the Judge of the Superior Court of De Kalb County sustained a demurrer to the petition to modify and dismissed the same. This judgment was not excepted to. Thereafter, Lorraine Fitch Sheffield Morris proceeded to Honolulu and carried the child with her. On July 15, 1957, she filed in De Kalb Superior Court her affidavit alleging that Wade Morton Sheffield, Sr., was in arrears in his alimony payments in the sum of $1,150, and prayed that an execution issue. The execution was ordered issued. Whereupon, she sued out garnishment proceedings, which were served on the employer of Wade Morton Sheffield, Sr. This was all ex parte without notice to Sheffield.
On July 22, 1957, Wade Morton Sheffield, Sr., filed his motion to vacate and set aside the judgment ordering the execution to issue and the garnishment proceedings, upon the ground that Lorraine Fitch Morris had violated her agreement and had defied the judgment of the court. Numerous demurrers were filed to this motion and also a plea to the jurisdiction. The plea was not passed upon. The trial judge overruled the demurrers and vacated the order requiring the execution to issue, and the garnishment proceedings based thereupon until further order of the court. The exception here is to these judgments.
Abraham J. Walcoff, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Emmett O. Dobbs, Jr. Paul L. Lindsay, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. The plaintiff in error obtained no ruling on her plea to the jurisdiction, but argues in this court that the general demurrer should have been sustained upon this ground, for the reason that it appeared on the face of the petition that she was a resident of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, and that the Superior Court of De Kalb County had no jurisdiction of her. We deem it sufficient to say that she could not voluntarily come into the courts of De Kalb County seeking affirmative relief, and then contend that the court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate any contention the defendant had as to why she should not be permitted to proceed. The general demurrer raising this question was, therefore, clearly without merit.
2. We have examined the numerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferster v. Ferster
...The law and the evidence demanded that the father be given all of the children, and it was error to rule otherwise. See Morris v. Sheffield, 214 Ga. 63, 102 S.E.2d 595. Judgment reversed on the main bill; affirmed on the cross All the Justices concur. ...
-
Buxton v. Hooker
...relief sought, and the court erred in dismissing it on demurrer thereto. We have not overlooked the majority ruling in Morris v. Sheffield, 214 Ga. 63, 102 S.E.2d 595, which was a divorce and alimony case. The decree in that case was based on a contract which the parties made respecting cus......
-
Iannicelli v. Iannicelli, 67211
...to be primarily an attempt to secure equitable relief from the trial court based upon the Supreme Court's holding in Morris v. Sheffield, 214 Ga. 63, 102 S.E.2d 595. In Morris, the husband merely requested the trial court to exercise its equitable powers and set aside the fi. fa. issued pur......
-
Hancock v. Coley, 45563
...child support provisions of a divorce decree at the behest of one who is refusing to comply with that same decree. Morris v. Sheffield, 214 Ga. 63, 102 S.E.2d 595 (1958). It is within the power of a court to refuse to enforce child support payments under these circumstances. It is not gener......