West v. Hatcher
| Decision Date | 10 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 22247,22247 |
| Citation | 134 S.E.2d 603,219 Ga. 540 |
| Parties | Laura M. WEST v. Evelyn C. HATCHER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Since the court which rendered the prior judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, such judgment was not res judicata as to the instant suit.
O. L. Crumbley, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
For review here is the sustaining of a plea of res judicata to a petition for habeas corpus.
The litigation began when Laura M. West filed a petition in the Superior Court of Bibb County seeking custody of certain minor children. She alleged that she is their paternal grandmother, that their parents were granted a divorce by which the father was awarded custody, that he subsequently died, that they have no guardian and a custodian for them is needed, that by reason of petitioner's care and training of the children she is a fit person for their custodian, and that the children's mother, Evelyn C. Hatcher, resides in Bibb County. The petition prayed that process issue to the mother, that the matter be referred to the Juvenile Court of Bibb County, that petitioner be appointed custodian, and for general relief. The matter embraced in that petition was transferred by the Superior Court of Bibb County to the Juvenile Court of Bibb County for it to investigate and make temporary and permanent awards of custody.
To that petition the mother filed general demurrers, which the juvenile court on May 6, 1963, sustained upon each and every ground, thereby dismissing the petition.
Several days later the grandmother filed a second petition in the Superior Court of Bibb County, naming the mother as defendant. This petition repeated substantially the allegations of the first, and also alleged that there had been material changes in circumstances substantially affecting the welfare of the children, and that by reason of specific acts the mother was not a fit and proper custodian. The petition prayed for writ of habeas corpus and other relief. This matter was likewise transferred by the Superior Court to the Juvenile Court of Bibb County for investigation, hearing and determination of custody.
To this second petition the mother interposed a plea of res judicata predicated upon the aforesaid May 6, 1963, judgment of the Juvenile Court of Bibb County, which sustained her general demurrers to and dismissed the first petition. The judge of the juvenile court sustained the mother's plea of res judicata and dismissed the grandmother's petition.
Error is assigned by the grandmother upon the sustaining of the plea.
As to res judicata, our Code provides that 'A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.' Code § 110-501. Code § 3-607 is to the same effect. The sustaining of a general demurrer to a petition is such a conclusive judgment. Code § 110-504.
However, the judgment now claimed to be res judicata was rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter and, for that reason, was not res judicata. See such cases as Dix v. Dix, 132 Ga. 630(3), 64 S.E. 790 and Langston v. Nash, 192 Ga. 427,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.A.W., In Interest of
...Par. I. From this also it would appear that statute, not Constitution, governs whether it may grant new trials. See West v. Hatcher, 219 Ga. 540, 542, 134 S.E.2d 603 (1964). The current constitutional provision regarding new trials differs from the previous Constitution, which had provided ......
-
Wilbanks v. Wilbanks, 22812
...illegal detention, and an illegal detention or restraint is the gist of a proceeding for habeas corpus. See Code § 50-101; West v. Hatcher, 219 Ga. 540, 134 S.E.2d 603. Nothing contained in Art. VI, Sec. IV, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution of 1945 (Code Ann. § 2-3901) which vests exclusi......
-
J.O., In Interest of
...courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only those powers specifically conferred upon them by statute. West v. Hatcher, 219 Ga. 540, 542, 134 S.E.2d 603 (1964). See OCGA § 15-11- 5. The court was correct as to the motion for new trial vehicle. Such courts are without the power......
- Dyer v. City of Atlanta