Summary
In Soman v. Yeager, 209 Ga. 444 (73 S.E.2d 198) the bill of exceptions was based on one premise only, that the judgment was erroneous as being contrary to law and nothing more. There is more than that in the case at bar.
Summary of this case from Hudgens v. Meeks Hammond c. Co.Opinion
18009.
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 15, 1952.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1952. REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 25, 1952.
Habeas corpus. Before Judge Paschall. Gordon Superior Court. August 16, 1952.
James B. Langford and J. A. Gregory, for plaintiff in error.
T. L. Shanahan and H. L. Barnett, contra.
Where, under the pleadings and the evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding for custody of a minor child, a judgment is rendered upon which two or more possible assignments of error may be made, such as that it was contrary to law for stated reasons, or that it was contrary to the evidence, or that the evidence demanded a finding for the mother under the full faith and credit clauses as contained in the Code, §§ 1-401, 38-627, or that the father was concluded for the reason that there was no evidence of a change in condition since the rendition of judgment by a California court awarding custody to the mother, a general assignment of error that the judgment was erroneous as being "contrary to law," is too indefinite to raise any question for decision. Lanier v. Gay, 197 Ga. 187 ( 28 S.E.2d 579), and cases cited; City of Douglas v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 207 Ga. 690 (2) ( 64 S.E.2d 63). Applying the foregoing principles of law to the instant case, the writ of error must be dismissed because the sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions is too general to present any question for decision by the Supreme Court.
Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur.
No. 18009. SUBMITTED OCTOBER 15, 1952 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 12, 1952 — REHEARING DENIED NOVEMBER 25, 1952.
Mrs. Minnie M. Soman instituted in Gordon Superior Court, against G. W. Yeager, her former husband, a habeas corpus proceeding to recover the custody of their minor child.
On the hearing the mother introduced an exemplified copy of proceedings in the Superior Court of Los Angles, California, for appointment of a guardian of the child here involved, which showed among others the following facts: The Superior Court of Gordon County, Georgia, on November 9, 1950, awarded custody to the father in a prior habeas corpus proceeding instituted by the mother. On the same day, upon request of the mother, it was ordered that she be permitted to have part-time custody. On August 3, 1951, the Los Angeles Superior Court appointed the mother as guardian and ordered that the father have reasonable visitation, but that he should not remove the child from the jurisdiction of the court without permission.
No other evidence was introduced in the present hearing, and the court awarded custody to the father. The mother excepted in a direct bill of exceptions on the sole ground that the judgment was erroneous as being "contrary to law."