Legal Opinion

Haygood v. Haygood

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 12, 1940No. 13158PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1. In the instant case the proceeding is not a statutory motion for a new trial, as provided for in the Code, § 70-301, or the equivalent of such a motion, such as a direct exception to a verdict and decree. Code, § 6-804; Lovelace v. Lovelace, 179 Ga. 822 (1-e), (177 S.E. 685). Consequently it was not demurrable on the ground that the petition failed to set forth a brief of the evidence submitted at the trial of the divorce suit, as is required in a motion for a new trial.

2. Neither is the proceeding a statutory motion to set aside a judgment, as provided in the Code, § 37-219, which…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Watts v. WattsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  3. Lovelace v. LovelaceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  4. Young v. YoungSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  5. McConnell v. McConnellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Musgrove v. MusgroveSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
  2. Gates v. GatesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  3. Langston v. NashSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  4. Frost v. FrostSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  5. Price v. PriceMississippi Supreme Court · 1947

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API