Sheppard v. Sheppard, 17588
| Decision Date | 10 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17588,17588 |
| Citation | 208 Ga. 422,67 S.E.2d 131 |
| Parties | SHEPPARD v. SHEPPARD et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. S. Wimberly, Lumpkin, for plaintiffs in error.
G. Y. Harrell, Claude D. Harrell, Lumpkin, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Strict technical pleadings are not required in a habeas corpus proceeding between rival contestants for the custody of minor children. Where a writ has been issued and in response thereto the children have been brought into court, the better practice is to inquire into the evidence necessary to a proper decision of the case, unless the petition alleges facts which show affirmatively as a matter of law that the respondent is entitled to the custody of the children. McDowell v. Gould, 166 Ga. 670, 144 S.E. 206; Wilkinson v. Lee, 138 Ga. 360, 75 S.E. 477, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 1013; McCoy v. Brookins, 150 Ga. 636, 104 S.E. 572; Simmons v. Georgia Iron and Coal Co., 117 Ga. 305, 43 S.E. 780, 61 L.R.A. 739; Vincent v. Vincent, 181 Ga. 355, 182 S.E. 180.
2. The petition in this habeas corpus case, brought jointly by the father and the paternal uncle and aunt of the children as plaintiffs, against the mother of the children, might have been subject to the criticism that in so far as the father is concerned the allegations disclosed that he had voluntarily surrendered to the other plaintiffs his paternal rights to the custody of the children, but the petition did not allege facts which showed affirmatively as a matter of law that the respondent was entitled to the custody of the children as against such other plaintiffs; and, under application of the foregoing principles, the trial court did not err in refusing to sustain the demurrer to the petition upon the ground of misjoinder of parties plaintiff and causes of action.
3. While cases dealing with the custody of minor children present complex problems for the conscientious trial judge, who often feels the need of all the light possible before reaching a conclusion, however difficult the task of the judge in such a case, the law requires that he make his decision on the evidence, and does not allow him, after the evidence has closed, and after argument of counsel, to make a private investigation by interviewing persons, the number and names of whom are unknown to the parties of their counsel--who have had no opportunity to examine or cross-examine them--and to base his judgment in part upon information thus obtained. Everett...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkins v. Courson
...mind that strict technical pleading is not required in habeas corpus proceedings as to the custody of minor children. Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422(1), 67 S.E.2d 131; Barber v. Wells, 213 Ga. 1, 96 S.E.2d There was evidence to sustain the allegations as to the father's unfitness. He ack......
-
Camp v. Camp
...thought that our opinions in Kilgore v. Tiller, 194 Ga. 527, 22 S.E.2d 150, Everett v. Sharpe, 207 Ga. 502, 63 S.E.2d 1, Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422, 67 S.E.2d 131, and Moody v. Gilbert, 208 Ga. 784, 69 S.E.2d 874, made it crystal clear that the trial courts of the State could not con......
-
Harrison v. Kelly, 18093
...69 Ga. 401(3). The cases of Kilgore v. Tiller, 194 Ga. 527, 22 S.E.2d 150; Everett v. Sharpe, 207 Ga. 502, 63 S.E.2d 1; Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422, 67 S.E.2d 731, and Moody v. Gilbert, 208 Ga. 784, 69 S.E.2d 874, are not controlling here, for the reason that in each of those cases co......
-
Barber v. Wells
...decision, unless the petition alleges facts which show affirmatively that the respondent is entitled to the custody. Sheppard v. Sheppard, 208 Ga. 422, 67 S.E.2d 131. In the present case the allegations of the petition, as amended, with reference to the failure of the petitioner's attorney ......