BEAVERS, guardian, v. WILLIAMS

Supreme Court of Georgia1943-11-10No. No. 14677

197 Ga. 9

Summary · law.co

Holding. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction because the only ruling challenged—the overruling of a demurrer to an amended answer—was interlocutory and did not constitute a final disposition of the case.

Hattie Beavers, as guardian of a four-year-old orphan, sought custody of the child through habeas corpus proceedings against Victoria Williams, the child's maternal grandmother. The trial court awarded custody to Williams, and Beavers appealed. In a prior decision, the Supreme Court established that a duly appointed guardian is entitled to custody of their ward absent changed circumstances affecting the child's welfare. After the remittitur was returned, Williams amended her answer to allege that the guardianship appointment was procured through fraud. Beavers then demurred to the amended answer on multiple grounds, and the trial court overruled the demurrer.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Because the only issue raised on appeal was the overruling of the demurrer—an interlocutory ruling—and no final judgment had been rendered in the case, the court lacked authority to review the matter. The court noted that under governing statute, cases may be appealed only when the decision would constitute a final resolution of the case or as to some material party.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders
Rights of an appointed guardian versus relatives in custody disputes
Standards for amending pleadings in habeas corpus proceedings
Collateral attack on guardianship appointments

Procedural posture

This was the second appearance in the Supreme Court of a habeas corpus case involving custody of a minor orphan, in which the trial court overruled a guardian's demurrer to an amended answer alleging fraud in the guardianship appointment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

This is the second appearance of this case in the Supreme Court. Mrs. Hattie Beavers as guardian of Donald Pierce Wilbanks, an orphan four years of age, brought habeascorpus proceedings against Mrs. Victoria Williams, seeking custody of the child. The petitioner was a niece of the child’s father, and the respondent was the maternal grandmother.

After hearing evidence the judge awarded custody to the respondent, and the guardian excepted. This court said: “A guardian of the person and property of a minor orphan is entitled to the custody of the ward. On a habeas-corpus proceeding brought by such a guardian to obtain the custody of his ward, the court is not authorized -to give custody of the ward to another person, where no change of circumstances affecting the welfare of the child has taken place since the court of ordinary appointed such guardian.” Beavers v. Williams, 194 Ga. 875 (23 S. E. 2d, 171).

After return of the remittitur and before the judgment of the Supreme Court was made the judgment of the trial court, the respondent amended her answer, averring that the order appointing petitioner as guardian was void because of fraud perpetrated on the court. The sole exception is to an order overruling the guardian’s demurrer to the respondent’s answer as amended.

No cause shall be carried to the Sripreme Court upon any bill of exceptions, so long as the same is pending in the court below, unless the decision or judgment complained of, if it had been rendered as claimed by the plaintiff in error, would have been a final disposition of the cause, or final as to some material party thereto. Code, § 6-701. The plaintiff, who was seeking custody of a minor child, demurred to the respondent’s answer as amended, on the grounds: the original answer failed to constitutea defense, and there is nothing to amend by; is not a proper proceeding to set aside the judgment; is a collateral attack upon the judgment in the court of ordinary; could only be urged in the original proceeding for appointment of the guardian; is an attempt to set at naught the judgment of the court of ordinary; comes tóo late; matters complained of are res adjudicata; fails to show any legal detention of the child; respondent is estopped to file objections to appointment of guardian; ample remedy in court of ordinary to attack judgment; undertakes to set up new cause; allegations of fraud are conclusions of the pleader; shows no right of possession of the child. The court overruled the demurrer.

The only ruling complained of in the bill of exceptions being the overruling of the demurrer to the answer as amended, and no final judgment appearing to have been rendered in the case, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ of error. Battle v. Hambrick, 142 Ga. 807 (83 S. E. 937); Vanzant v. First National Bank of Polk County, 164 Ga. 772 (2 a) (139 S. E. 537); Tallent v. Lowry, 177 Ga. 752 (171 S. E. 299); Ryals v. Atlantic Life Insurance Co., 181 Ga. 843 (184 S. E. 698); Darden v. Roberts, 193 Ga. 637 (19 S. E. 2d, 270); Rivers v. Hollingsworth, 196 Ga. 708 (27 S. E. 2d, 330).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.