DocketNumber: 37931
Citation Numbers: 100 Ga. App. 752, 112 S.E.2d 304, 1959 Ga. App. LEXIS 718
Judges: Carlisle
Filed Date: 11/10/1959
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/7/2024
This was a caveat to a year’s support awarded to the defendant as the widow of William Horseley. On the trial, at the conclusion of the evidence, the judge directed a verdict for the applicant. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the exception here is to that judgment.
The caveatrix testified that she married William Hosley on January 6, 1945, in Thomas County, Georgia; that William Hosley represented to her that he had been married and had a divorce and that he so swore before the ordinary; that they lived together from January 6, 1945, until his death on August 26, 1958, as man and wife in Thomas County and that she had never seen or heard of Katie Ridley until she filed her application for year’s support with the ordinary in Thomas County, Georgia. She introduced a certified copy of an application for marriage license made by William Hosley and Idella Massey on January 6, 1945, in which William Hosley gave his age at that time as 44 years. It was signed by the man as “William Hosley.” She also introduced the marriage license and the marriage certificate, which both showed that the man involved was William Hosley.
The applicant testified that she married William Horseley on November 30, 1913, and that she lived with him until 1930; that she had never divorced him, though she had subsequently married a Charlie English and had thereafter lived with a man named Ridley in Florida and had taken his name. She testified that at all times William Horseley was in touch with her and 'knew where she was and that she never had any notice of any divorce proceeding against her. She introduced to substantiate her evidence a certified copy of her marriage certificate as recorded in the public records of Macon County.
It is contended by counsel for the defendant in error that counsel for the plaintiff in error has raised the matter of this conflict in the evidence for .the first time before this court. It is immaterial that the specific point was not made in the trial court in this regal’d since the trial judge directed a verdict over the objection and exception of the plaintiff in error, and counsel for the plaintiff in error, having made a proper assignment of error thereon in the bill of exceptions, is entitled to contend for any reason which he may deem proper why the direction of that verdict was erroneous.
While the trial judge in directing the verdict properly applied the provisions of Code (Ann.) § 53-102 (1) as amended by the act approved February 22, 1957 (Ga. L. 1957, p. 83) to this case (Hammack v. McDonald, 153 Ga. 543, 113 S. E. 83), in regard to the presumption against divorce, there being no affirmative
Judgment reversed.