Ramsay v. Sims
Decision Date | 09 June 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 17824,17824 |
Citation | 209 Ga. 228,71 S.E.2d 639 |
Parties | RAMSAY et al. v. SIMS et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It was the manifest intention of the parties as evidenced by their written contract, which was made the judgment of the court in their divorce action, that the contract should survive the death of the husband, and the court erred in holding that the provisions of the contract for the support of the wife and minor children terminated upon his death.
Fulton National Bank and Mrs. Luise L. Sims, as administrators of the estate of E. H. Sims, deceased, filed a petition in the superior court for direction. The petition alleged that the deceased was first married to Mrs. Luise L. Sims, and during their marriage there was born to them two children, Mrs. Dorothy Sims Maddox and Mrs. Luise Sims Allison. The deceased and Mrs. Luise L. Sims were divorced, and the deceased thereafter married Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims, and there are two children by this marriage, Lida Elizabeth Sims and Edgar H. Sims, Jr. The deceased and Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims were divorced, and thereafter the deceased remarried Mrs. Luise L. Sims, with whom he was living as husband and wife at the time of his death. Prior to the final decree of divorce between Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims and the deceased, they entered into a contract in which it was agreed that certain sums should be paid to Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims as alimony and for the support of the two minor children. Parts of the contract entered into between Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims and the deceased are set forth in the petition, and a copy of the contract is attached as an exhibit.
Omitting the formal parts of the contract, wherein Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims was named as first party, and E. H. Sims as second party, the contract, which was duly executed by both parties, provides:
'Policy No. 987264 issued by Reliance Life Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh.
'Policy No. 987265 issued by Reliance Life Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh.
'Policy No. 97287 issued by the Volunteer State Life Insurance Company.
Thereafter, by a decree duly entered in the superior court on September 19, 1950, it is provided in part as follows:
George B. Ramsay, Jr. was duly appointed guardian ad litem for the two minor children, Lida Elizabeth Sims and Edgar H. Sims, Jr. He accepted the appointment and filed an answer. Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims, individually, filed her response to the petition, and Mrs. Luise L. Sims, individually, and Mrs. Dorothy Sims Maddox and Mrs. Luise Sims Allison filed a joint answer.
The petition for direction propounded three questions, only questions 1 and 3 being answered by the decree. These questions were as follows:
The matter came on regularly for a hearing before a judge without the intervention of a jury, and an order was duly entered in which it was recited that after 'hearing evidence and argument of counsel and considering particularly the doctrine enunciated in Berry v. Berry, 208 Ga. 285, 66 S.E.2d 336, and authorities cited therein, it is considered, ordered and decreed: Questions numbered 1 and 3 propounded to the court in paragraph 9 of the petition be and they are answered in the negative, question number 2 therein requiring no answer.'
George B. Ramsay, Jr., as guardian ad litem for the minor children, Lida Elizabeth Sims and Edgar H. Sims, Jr., and Lida Elizabeth Sims, Edgar H. Sims, Jr., and Mrs. Lida Ramsay Sims, jointly and severally, assign error on the decree.
James A. Branch, Thomas B. Branch, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
MacDougald, Troutman, Sams & Schroder, Gambrell, Harlan, Barwick, Russell & Smith, M. Cook Barwick, T. M. Smith, James C. Abbot, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Counsel for the defendants in error have strongly insisted by brief and in oral argument that the present case is controlled by the rulings of this court in Berry v. Berry, 208 Ga. 285, 66 S.E.2d 336. Counsel for the plaintiffs in error have by brief argued that the Berry case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Findley v. Findley
...a definite time for performance, i.e., the majority of the minor child or the death or remarriage of the supported spouse. Wife acknowledges Ramsay has been overruled, but argues it is applicable to the case at bar because it was in effect at the time the judgment of divorce incorporating t......
- Ware v. Hill
-
Johnson v. Every
...lifetime or until she remarries); Parker v. Parker, 193 Cal. 478, 225 P. 447 (during the remainder of her natural life); Ramsay v. Sims, 1952, 209 Ga. 228, 71 S.E.2d 639 (for her natural life or until she remarries). But the following cases construed the agreement and decree as not intendin......
-
Gordon v. Valley Nat. Bank of Ariz.
...thereon. Garber v. Robitshek, 226 Minn. 398, 33 N.W.2d 30 (1948); Hill v. Matthews', 76 N.M. 474, 416 P.2d 144 (1966); Ramsay v. Sims, 209 Ga. 228, 71 S.E.2d 639 (1952); Simpson v. Simpson, 108 So.2d 632 (Fla.App.1959); Hutchings v. Bates, 406 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.1966); Silberman v. Brown, 34 O......
-
Domestic Relations - Barry B. Mcgough and Gregory R. Miller
...46. See Schartle v. Trust Co. Bank, 239 Ga. 248, 249, 236 S.E.2d 602, 603 (1977). 47. Findley, 280 Ga. at 454-55, 629 S.E.2d at 224. 48. 209 Ga. 228, 71 S.E.2d 639 (1952). 49. Id. at 237-38, 71 S.E.2d at 644-45. 50. Id. 51. 248 Ga. 439, 284 S.E.2d 254 (1981). 52. Id. at 440-41, 284 S.E.2d a......