Reagan v. Reagan

• Decision Date: 04 February 1965
• Docket Number: Nos. 22752-53,s. 22752-53
• Citation: 220 Ga. 587,140 S.E.2d 841
• Parties: William Alfred REAGAN v. Esther Naoma REAGAN. Esther Naoma REAGAN v. William Alfred REAGAN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 841

140 S.E.2d 841

220 Ga. 587

William Alfred REAGAN v. Esther Naoma REAGAN.

Esther Naoma REAGAN v. William Alfred REAGAN.

Nos. 22752-53.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 4, 1965.

Clower & Royal, Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Rogers, Magruder & Hoyt, Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

CANDLER, Justice.

William Alfred Reagan filed a suit for divorce against Esther Naoma Reagan on the ground of wilful desertion. Mrs. Reagan answered his petition and denied its allegations of desertion and by cross petition alleged that he had wilfully abandoned her and had also cruelly mistreated her. She prayed for a divorce and for alimony and demanded a jury trial. On the trial each party introduced evidence in support of his or her respective contention. The jury brought in a verdict for divorce which did not specify whether it was for the plaintiff or for the defendant. It awarded to the defendant $12,500 as alimony and specified when and how it should be paid. The judge, after conferring with counsel for the parties, instructed the jury to return to their room and bring in a verdict specifying to whom the divorce was granted. The jury complied with his direction and on September 17, 1964, brought in a verdict which reads as follows: 'We, the jury find that sufficient proofs have been submitted to our consideration to authorize the granting of a total divorce to the plaintiff, that is to say a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, upon legal principles between the parties to this case. Alimony award $12,500.00 to be paid as follows: $5,000.00 lump sum * * *. Remainder at $100.00 monthly to defendant.' This verdict was received, published and recorded. No motion for a new trial was made by either party but the plaintiff on September 30, 1964, filed a motion to modify and amend the verdict by striking therefrom the portion which awarded alimony to the defendant on the ground that an award of alimony could not be legally made by the jury after it had found from the evidence that the plaintiff was entitled to a divorce on his ground of wilful desertion. This motion was overruled. On the defendant's oral motion therefor the judge, on October 9, 1964, struck and set aside the second verdict which had been received, published and recorded and reinstated the first verdict which the jury had brought into court--the verdict which the court had previously declined to receive and order recorded. To the two aforementioned rulings which were adverse to the plaintiff he excepted and assigned error thereon in his bill of exceptions. The defendant in a cross bill of exceptions assigned error on the court's failure to receive and cause to be recorded the first verdict the jury brought in which reads as follows: 'We, the jury find that sufficient proofs have been submitted to our consideration to authorize the granting of a total divorce, that is to say a divorce a vinculo matrimonii upon legal principles between the parties to this case. Alimony award $12,500.00 to be paid as follows: $5,000.00 lump sum * * * Remainder at $100.00 monthly to defendant.' On the reinstated verdict and pursuant to its terms, the court on October 9, 1964, entered a judgment and decree which (1) granted a divorce to both of the parties, (2) required the plaintiff to pay the defendant as alimony $5,000 immediately and $100 per month until the awarded amount of $12,500 was paid in full, and (3) taxed the costs of the proceedings against the plaintiff. Held:

1. The plaintiff's motion to amend and modify the second verdict which was returned in this case was properly overruled by the trial judge. This motion sought to substantially amend and modify the verdict after it had been received, published and recorded and after the jury had dispersed and it is clearly settled by Code § 110-111 and by numerous decisions of this court that while a verdict may be amended in mere matter of form after it has been received, published and recorded and after the jury...