Legal Opinion
Phinizy v. Phinizy
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided September 19, 1922No. 2858PublishedCited by 46 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFish, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s amendment of his petition, in which he set up cruel treatment as a new ground of divorce. The first ground of the demurrer is, that the amendment introduces a new cause of action. This has been ruled adversely to the defendant. Zachary v. Zachary, 141 Ga. 404 (81 S. E. 120).
The second ground of the demurrer 'is, that the allegations of the amendment are insufficient to constitute such cruel treatment as will authorize the grant of a divorce under our divorce statute. “In case of cruel…
2Cases cited52 opinions
- Bordeaux v. BordeauxMontana Supreme Court · 1905
- Fritz v. FritzIllinois Supreme Court · 1891
- Ring v. RingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Stoner v. StonerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Sims v. Georgia Railway & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by46 opinions
- Reynolds v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1961
- Brown v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1949
- Lowry v. LowrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Tarr v. TarrSupreme Court of Virginia · 1945
- Gaulding v. GauldingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.