STEBBINS v. STEBBINS., 206 Ga. 529, 57 S.E.2.d 564 (1950)

Supreme Court of Georgia

Status: DECIDED

Docket Number: 16982

Parts: ATKINSON, Presiding Justice.

Linked as:

Summary

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., who dissents.

Summary

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., who dissents.

Text

John C. Griffin, for plaintiff.

Under the new divorce law (Ga. L. 1946, p. 90; Code, Ann. Supp., 30-101), a motion for a new trial is not an available remedy to attack a verdict granting a divorce.

Lewis Stebbins filed a petition for divorce against Kathryn Stebbins. She filed a cross-action, and prayed for alimony. Upon the trial the jury found a verdict for divorce, removed the disabilities of both parties, and awarded alimony to the wife. The husband filed a motion for new trial, and upon the hearing the trial judge, on motion, passed an order dismissing the motion for new trial. The exception here is to that order.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) This case was assigned to the writer to prepare the opinion for the court. All of the members of this court except the writer have construed the new divorce law (Ga. L. 1946, p. 90; Code, Ann. Supp., 30-101) to mean that, where a divorce is granted, the only mode of attacking that verdict is by a written petition to modify or set aside the verdict within thirty days, otherwise the verdict and judgment become of full force and effect; and that a motion for new trial is not an available remedy to attack that verdict. Dugas v. Dugas, 201 Ga. 190 (39 S. E. 2d, 658); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 202 Ga. 752 (44 S. E. 2d, 485); Williams v. Williams, 203 Ga. 231 (46 S. E. 2d, 65); Allison v. Allison, 204 Ga. 202 (48 S. E. 2d, 723); Gault v. Gault, 204 Ga. 205 (48 S. E. 2d, 819); Huguley v. Huguley, 204 Ga. 692 (51 S. E. 2d, 445); Allison v. Allison, 205 Ga. 233 (53 S. E. 2d, 114); Winn v. Winn, 205 Ga. 314 (53 S. E. 2d 477).

Though the writer has dissented in each of the foregoing cases for reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in Dugas v. Dugas and Winn v. Winn, supra, the other members of this court being committed to the above-stated ruling, it was not error for the trial judge to dismiss the motion for new trial.