Smith v. Smith, 24355
| Decision Date | 22 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 24355,24355 |
| Citation | 158 S.E.2d 679,223 Ga. 795 |
| Parties | Joe SMITH, Jr. v. Ruby Margaret SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Burch & Boswell, John S. Boswell, Sr., Valdosta, for appellant.
Floyd B. Moon, Valdosta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Ruby Margaret Smith filed a petition in the Superior Court of Lowndes County seeking a divorce, custody of the couple's minor children and alimony from Joe Smith, Jr. A temporary order granting the plaintiff custody of the minor children and possession of the couple's home and automobile was rendered on March 24, 1967. On April 7, 1967, a hearing was held and another temporary order was rendered on May 6, 1967, granting the plaintiff custody of the minor children, possession of the couple's home and furnishings, possession of a described automobile, alimony until further order of court, and attorney's fees. Thereafter on July 21, 1967, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking to have the defendant held in contempt of court for failure to pay alimony as directed in the order resulting from the hearing held on April 7, 1967. On the date the hearing was held on such petition the defendant filed a petition seeking to have such prior judgment modified. In separate judgments the trial court held the defendant in contempt for failing to pay alimony as previously directed and denied his petition to modify the prior judgment. The defendant enumerates as error the ex parte order of March 24, 1967, the judgment awarding temporary alimony, and the judgment holding him in contempt for failure to comply with the prior judgment awarding alimony. Held:
1. The question presented by the enumeration of error dealing with the ex parte judgment rendered when the plaintiff's petition was first filed, which judgment has been superseded by another judgment rendered after a hearing, is moot and presents nothing for decision.
2. The remaining enumerations of error relating to judgments rendered after hearings where evidence was presented (each judgment so stating) and no transcript of such evidence having been included in the record before this court, under the decisions in Brown v. State, 223 Ga. 540, 156 S.E.2d 454, and Reid v. Wilkerson, 223 Ga. 751, 158 S.E.2d 241, the judgment complained of must be affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tolbert v. Tolbert
...540, 156 S.E.2d 454, and Reid v. Wilkerson, 223 Ga. 751, 158 S.E.2d 241, the judgments complained of must be affirmed.' Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 795(2), 158 S.E.2d 679. Accord: Delta Corp. of America v. Aiken, 224 Ga. 241, 161 S.E.2d 293; Avery v. Avery, 224 Ga. 516, 162 S.E.2d 718; Jones v.......
-
Hill v. State
...questions requiring a review of evidence which we do not have before us. Brown v. State, 223 Ga. 540(2), 156 S.E.2d 454; Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 795(2), 158 S.E.2d 679; Davis v. State, 117 Ga.App. 359, 160 S.E.2d 670. We must therefore assume that the determination of the trial court was au......
-
Broadaway v. Thompson
...predicate his decision. It has been held repeatedly that in such cases the judgment of the lower court must be affirmed. Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 795(2), 158 S.E.2d 679; Brown v. State, 223 Ga. 540(2), 156 S.E.2d 454; Reid v. Wilkerson, 223 Ga. 751(2), 158 S.E.2d 241. A judgment is presumed ......
-
Graham v. Haley
...107 S.E.2d 799; Brown v. Goodloe, 215 Ga. 755(3), 113 S.E.2d 393; Tate v. Tate, 220 Ga. 393, 396(3), 139 S.E.2d 297; Smith v. Smith, 223 Ga. 795(2), 158 S.E.2d 679. 4. The seventh error enumerated is that the court disregarded the supersedeas granted upon the motion for new trial, and disre......