From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wright v. Wright

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 4, 1962
123 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1962)

Opinion

21460.

ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1961.

DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1962.

Alimony. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Wood.

P. C. King, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Walter W. Aycock, contra.


Where, as in this case, the petitioner sought a divorce against the defendant, who thereafter personally served her answer and cross-action upon the attorney of record for the petitioner after process issued, and service was accomplished upon her, and the petitioner then dismissed his case and moved to the State of Florida, his motion to dismiss the answer and cross-action for lack of personal service is without merit, as the cross-action is still pending even though the main action for divorce was dismissed, the court having jurisdiction of both the parties and the subject matter. Code Ann. § 81-301 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 761; 1952, p. 162; 1953, p. 21); Code Ann. § 24-3326 (Rule 26 of the Rules of the Superior Courts); Harrison v. Lovett, 198 Ga. 466 (1) ( 31 S.E.2d 799); Harris v. Harris, 205 Ga. 105 (1) ( 52 S.E.2d 598); Brewer v. Brewer, 206 Ga. 93 ( 55 S.E.2d 593). None of the cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error remotely resembles the facts and circumstances of this case, and for this reason they are completely inapplicable. The court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of service of the cross-action.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

ARGUED NOVEMBER 14, 1961 — DECIDED JANUARY 4, 1962.


Summaries of

Wright v. Wright

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jan 4, 1962
123 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1962)
Case details for

Wright v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:WRIGHT v. WRIGHT

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jan 4, 1962

Citations

123 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. 1962)
123 S.E.2d 557

Citing Cases

Wright v. Wright

On August 8, 1961, Dr. Wright dismissed his petition for divorce, and prayed that the answer and cross action…

Carroll v. Carroll

The dismissal of the divorce action left the counterclaim pending with jurisdiction over the plaintiff…