Mote v. Mote, 20025
| Decision Date | 07 May 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 20025,20025 |
| Citation | 103 S.E.2d 565,214 Ga. 134 |
| Parties | Claude C. MOTE v. Mary Love MOTE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Frank Grizzard, Norman H. Fudge, Atlanta, Marvin D. Pierce, Jr., Winder, for plaintiff in error.
Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Atlanta, C. O. Baker, Athens, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
An order or judgment that merely declares the rights of the parties, without any express command or prohibition, is not one which may be the basis of contempt proceedings. Brown v. Smith, 150 Ga. 111, 102 S.E. 813; Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 15; 12 Am.Jur. 406, § 24. Accordingly, where a petition filed by the defendant in error seeking an attachment for contempt against the plaintiff in error (the father), alleges that the parties were divorced in February, 1956; that a decree of custody as to their minor child was entered, which provided in part as follows: ; that on December 27, 1957, the plaintiff permitted the child to visit its father; and that the defendant father failed and refused to permit the child to return to her--such petition failed to set forth a cause of action for contempt of court, and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion to dismiss and the general demurrer, both of which were based on the ground that the petition failed to allege that the defendant had violated any order or command of the court, and in holding the plaintiff in error to be in contempt of court. Counsel for the defendant in error requests this court to distinguish the Brown case, supra, from the instant case and to overrule Hammock v. Hammock, supra. Neither of these cases was concurred in by all the Justices. This being true this court is not bound to follow those decisions (Walton v. Benton, 191 Ga. 548, 13 S.E.2d 185; Gormley v. Walton, 180 Ga. 660, 180 S.E. 220); and there would be no necessity to overrule them if we disapproved the rulings there made. However, we are of the opinion that the rulings made in each of those cases are sound and should be followed by this court. We do not agree with the contention of counsel for the defendant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Water Services, Inc. v. Tesco Chemicals, Inc.
...is applied as if it required seven concurrences to constitute a full bench decision. Ga.Const.1945, § 2-3701; e. g., Mote v. Mote, 1958, 214 Ga. 134, 103 S.E.2d 565. 6 See, e.g., Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. v. Audio Devices, Inc., S.D.Cal.1958, 166 F.Supp. 250, 7 See, e.g., Sun Dial Corp. v. Rideo......
-
Griggers v. Bryant, 31999
...S.E.2d 15 (1953) and those cases that have subsequently followed it, Adams v. Adams, 221 Ga. 710, 146 S.E.2d 759 (1966); Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 103 S.E.2d 565 (1958). In Hammock v. Hammock, supra, the parties were granted a divorce. Custody of the three minor children was awarded by the......
-
Stevenson v. Stevenson, 23396
...that appellant has violated these previous orders; hence, there is no merit to the contention of appellant on this ground. Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 103 S.E.2d 565; Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751, 76 S.E.2d 3. The circumstances in which a trial judge may be disqualified are set out in Cod......
-
Gore v. Gore, 21466
...For like rulings, see Brown v. Smith, 150 Ga. 111(2), 102 S.E. 813; Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751(2), 76 S.E.2d 15; and Mote v. Mote, 214 Ga. 134, 102 S.E.2d 565. But in the instant case the order which confers specified visitation rights on the father expressly imposes a duty and respons......