Moore v. Berry, 78 S.E.2d 6 (Ga. 1953). · Go Syfert
Moore v. Berry, 78 S.E.2d 6 (Ga. 1953). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tuggle v. State (gactapp, 1983-01-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1958 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1958 1992 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Tuggle v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Jones v. State, 246 Ga. 109, 112 ( 269 SE2d 6 ) (1980); Foster v. State, 230 Ga. 870, 871 (2) ( 199 SE2d 790 ) (1973); Shurley v. State, 210 Ga. 136, 137 (2) ( 78 SE2d 27 ) (1953).
discussed Cited "see" Tyree v. Jackson (2×)
Ga. · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Berry, 210 Ga. 136 (2) ( 78 SE2d 6 ), which was a habeas corpus proceeding brought, of course, prior to the Civil Practice Act and where similar reasoning was applied: The purpose of process and service is to bring the defendant into court.
discussed Cited "see" Lowery v. Adams (2×)
Ga. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Berry, 210 Ga. 136 ( 78 SE2d 6 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. State
Ga. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Shurley v. State, 210 Ga. 136 (2) ( 78 SE2d 27 ) (1953); Fraley v. State, 120 Ga. App. 427 ( 170 SE2d 729 ) (1969). 6.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Griggs v. Griggs (2×)
Ga. · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, in this connection, Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751 ( 76 SE2d 15 ).” Moore v. Berry, 210 Ga. 136 (3) ( 78 SE2d 6 ); Gore v. Gore, 217 Ga. 478 (1) ( 123 SE2d 254 ). 10.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lamb v. Nabers (2×)
Ga. · 1968 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Moore v. Berry, 210 Ga. 136 (1) ( 78 SE2d 6 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. State
Ga. · 1958 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Shurley v. State, 210 Ga. 136 (3) ( 78 S. E. 2d 27 ). 2.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moore Et Al.
v.
Berry
18351.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 14, 1953.
78 S.E.2d 6
Ronald F. Adams, for plaintiff in error.
Hawkins.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
Hawkins, Justice.

1. The assignment of on-or in the bill of exceptions that the court erred in failing to sustain a general demurrer, based upon the ground that the petition failed to state a cause of action, is without merit, since it does not appear from the record that any such demurrer was interposed to the petition in the trial court.

2. The plaintiffs in error designate the proceeding in the trial court as a habeas corpus proceeding, seeking to recover custody of a minor child. Exception to the final judgment on the ground that no process was affixed to the original petition is without merit, since the rule nisi issued by the court served upon the defendants is substantially in the form of the writ of habeas corpus prescribed by Code § 50-106.

3. So much of the judgment of Long Superior Court, of the. Atlantic Judicial Circuit, as adjudged the respondents in contempt of court because of an alleged disobedience of a judgment of Chatham Superior Court, of the Eastern Judicial Circuit, is erroneous. While “Every court has power to compel obedience to its judgments, orders, and processes (Gaston v. Shunk Plow Co., 161 Ga. 287, 298, 130 S. E. 580) ; . . . only the court offended . . . has power to punish for the contempt, or to entertain proceedings to that end.” Goodrum v. Goodrum, 202 Ga. 135 (42 S. E. 2d 450). See also, in this connection, Hammock v. Hammock, 209 Ga. 751 (76 S. E. 2d 15).

4. The judgment awarding the custody of the child to the applicant was not erroneous for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur.