*1 Huie, Ide, R. Thompson, Brown & Lawrence Ide, III, Brown, Hanes, & William Tom Watson Lefkoff Bolton, Hanes, General, Attorney Arthur K. Paul General, Attorney W. Assistant Bowling, Gerald for 29155. DAUGHTREY v. DAUGHTREY.
Ingram, Justice. appeal is from an order of interlocutory Court Superior County of Berrien entered on May 1974, which struck the pleadings a divorce action for wilful in- plaintiffs failure to answer terrogatories. A final decree was subsequently entered in the case on but there is no May appeal from the final
Since there is no certificate authorizing order, from the is not an interlocutory appealable Appellate under Practice Act and the appeal must be dismissed. Henderson v. Atlanta Transit System, 82. dismissed. All the concur.
Appeal Justices August 1974. Griner, Elsie H. for appellant. Perkins, Perkins,
Yancey & Carson Dane 29126. BRADLEY v. BRADLEY. Undercofler,
This is a divorce and suit. The husband- alimony appeals awarding defendant the trial court’s fees and the household to the wife. Held: The husband contends that court had after a verdict
no
to award
fees
We find no error
in the award.
jury.
nor a
Although
neither an
be filed or
after a
thereon
heard
Phillips,
Wise
(Phillips
Wise,
Luke,
*2
Luke v.
210);
157
814
159
SE
Ga.
Harrison,
(126
(65
374);
Harrison v.
The trial court did not determine
after the verdict
that
further evidence as to the amount of attorney fees
necessary.
He made the award based
the
the
presented during
proceeding.
evidence
divorce
Sweat,
(51
Sweat v.
court stated
716):
123 Ga.
SE
"The
courts of this
judges
State are
experienced
coming
and able
Before
to
lawyers.
the bench
were for
in the
they
years engaged
practice. Doubtless
if
participated
most
not all of them
in the trial of alimony
cases. It
strange
practicing lawyers
would be
were more
capable
fixing
Besides,
counsel fees than the judges.
above,
shown
it has been expressly decided that the judge
is not bound by
placed
the estimate
by attorneys upon the
services of their brother
particular
the
case.
evidence,
Why require such
if the
can
it?
disregard
The
requires
code
that he shall examine into all
the
circumstances
of the case. This would include
the
husband,
financial condition of the
the social position of
parties
the
previous
and their
manner of living, and the
needs of the wife. Evidence of these facts affords a
sufficient
fixing
basis for
an allowance for temporary
alimony, which includes the expenses
litigation.
We
that,
think
language
under the
of the section of the code
quoted
above
Code
is not bound
[now
§ 30-202]
to
expert
hear
evidence as to counsel fees.”
reserved
properly
and awarded
fees in
this case
based on the
evidence
at the
hearing.
(200
Shepherd
Shepherd,
893);
SE2d
Ogletree
Ogletree,
Hobbs v.
167);
2. In her complaint prayed wife that she be awarded the home of the and the household The showed in the furniture. evidence wife lived home with their minor and her two children sister. $1,000 evidence shows that there was an indebtedness due on jury making the household furniture. The its award remaining stated the wife to assume the due on the but did liability specially loan not award the wife the furniture In furnishings. and its trial court awarded furniture furnishings located in the home to the wife. The appellant contends trial court had no to award furniture had jury specifically wife since agree. done so. We do not intendment,
"Verdicts shall have reasonable shall receive a reasonable construction. .” Code § 110-105. "The may, proper mould so as to full justice parties...” verdict do Code may be amended mere form but... dispersed; have not be *3 amended in matter . .” of substance . Code 110-111. "A § full power court shall have to mould its decrees so as to meet exigencies of each case . Code §
Under facts of this the final judgment did not amend the verdict matter of substance and the was authorized to enter 714). Moon, judgment. Moon All Judgment the Justices concur. affirmed. September 9, 1, 1974 Rehearing denied October se. Louie D. Bradley, pro Brookins,
Mildred D. Kingloff, Ernest Rehearing. On Motion One of the by issues for determination this court was whether an attorney made jury’s a granting divorce. In issue, deciding this this considered supplemental transcript of the record. The movant contends this court erred in considering transcript record because it did comply with (f) (Ga. Code Ann. 6-805 pp. The movant contends that since the parties were to agree unable on what transpired the trial court the trial court should have "set the matter down for with notice to parties, both the difference so as resolve[d] to make the record conform to the truth.” Code Ann. § (f). 6-805 The movant contends that he did not have notice any However, on the matter. the movant overlooks the next sentence of this Code section which provides: "If anything material to either party is omitted from the record therein, on or is misstated court, or stipulation, either or before the record court, is transmitted to the appellate a proper suggestion initiative, its own may direct that the omission or corrected, and, misstatement shall be that a necessary, supplemental record shall be certified transmitted clerk of the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied.) his of fact and conclusions
of law stated: "I was the trial in the above entitled and have reviewed transcript proceedings had herein as well as my notes. Based thereon, my independent recollection of the herein, facts I find as follows: That at a side bar conference which the respective attorneys and the Court participated, for the plaintiff reserved fees, which reservation joined in by the the Court granting leave to the plaintiff to make such reservation. Conclusions of Law. The record shall reflect there was a reservation of attorney fees herein.” The trial judge directed that *4 superior court clerk include these of fact and conclusions in law its correction of the record. Therefore, this court properly considered the correction of the record made court.
The movant’s motion based on ground is merit. therefore without
29128. CAMPBELL et al. v. et CARROLL al. et al. v. CALHOUN CARROLL et al. Gunter,
This is an appeal from a that decided an election contest in appellants favor of the View, are City of Mountain three incumbent election, councilmen who were defeated certain city officials. The judgment declared appellees councilmen, duly enjoined be the elected the three defeated acting incumbents from further councilmen, and it cast the costs of proceeding against the city.
We affirm the Mountain View is a municipal corporation governed council, aby mayor posts and three for members of the council up came for election 1973. On December 1,1973, held, contested, the election was election and the contest was sustained. A special election for the posts three was then held on January and at this special election appellees each of the received a majority of the votes cast. The results of this special election were certified by Superintendent of Elections and read into the minutes of the council.
Four individual voters who were not candidates the special election then filed a contest of the election with the council. None of the candidates who were defeated in the special election filed contests.
The Georgia Municipal provides Election Code in § (a): 34A-1501 petition to contest the results of a primary writing election shall be filed in city clerk within five days results of the election are declared governing authority. Upon filing petition, contest shall be set before the governing municipality. Such shall be conducted in procedures accordance with as set