3. Allegations that the defendant is a resident of another state and that the plaintiff has been a resident of the county in Georgia where the divorce action is filed for more than six months is a sufficient allegation of venue. Tate v. Tate, 220 Ga. 393 ( 139 S.E.2d 297). Such an allegation is distinguishable from that in Johnson v. Johnson, 222 Ga. 433 ( 150 S.E.2d 684) relied upon by the appellant where the allegations were merely that the plaintiff had been a resident of Georgia for six months.
In such an instance we must assume that the evidence demanded the verdict directed, and affirm the judgment. Bennett v. Carter, 168 Ga. 133 (1) ( 147 S.E. 380); Dozier v. Dozier, 194 Ga. 268 ( 21 S.E.2d 655); Carter v. Hayes, 214 Ga. 782 (1) ( 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 disregarded the assessor named by the appellant, and named assessors for Hazel Haley and the condemning authority, who assessed the property and made a return, a proceeding in which the appellant took no part since he felt that he was bound to respect the supersedeas he had invoked, and he considers such acts void.
Other evidence of the court's jurisdiction was that the defendant made a general appearance and invoked the judgment of the Jeff Davis Superior Court on the issues of the case. In Tate v. Tate, 220 Ga. 393, 396 ( 139 S.E.2d 297), this court made the following pronouncement: "The husband, having filed an answer to the wife's suit in Upson County, and by such answer having made a general appearance, was subject to the jurisdiction of the court and could properly be bound by the judgment of the court favorable to the wife on all issues sustained by the evidence." 2.
Since no transcript of evidence appears in this record, no enumeration of error requiring a consideration of evidence can invoke any ruling by this court. Tate v. Tate, 220 Ga. 393 ( 139 S.E.2d 297); Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williamson, 124 Ga. App. 549 ( 184 S.E.2d 665); Commercial Nat. Bank of Cedartown v. Moore Ford Co., 121 Ga. App. 424 ( 174 S.E.2d 201); Buffington v. Ray-O-Lite Southeast, 119 Ga. App. 799 ( 168 S.E.2d 662); Nadler v. Okarma, 114 Ga. App. 275 ( 150 S.E.2d 846). The jury verdict should therefore be affirmed.