Anthony v. Penn
Opinion
Head, Justice.
Formerly a final decree for alimony,- unexcepted to, passed beyond the discretionary control of the trial judge, and he had no authority to modify its terms.
787 ( 28 S. E. 977 );
382 ( 91 S. E. 415 );
520 ( 107 S. E. 490 );
100 ( 14 S. E. 2d 680 );
Roberson v. Roberson, 210 Ga.
346 ( 80 S. E. 2d 283 ). In the present case it is contended that the final decree rendered in 1942 may now be revised by the judge of the superior court under the act entitled, “Modification of Permanent Alimony Judgments,” approved March 9, 1955 (Ga. L. 1955, p. 630).
Retroactive laws are prohibited by the Constitution and statutes of this State. Constitution, art. I, sec. III, par. II (Code, Ann., § 2-302); Code § 102-104. The rights of parties as fixed by a solemn judgment, which has long since passed beyond the rules of law applicable to review, can not be vacated, abrogated, modified, or set aside under the contention that the General Assembly has modified the remedy applicable to such judgments.
Moore v. Gill, 43
388 ;
Home Insurance Co.
509 ( 176 S. E. 371 ).
Laws prescribe for the future. Unless a statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, shows that the General Assembly intended that it operate retroactively, it will be given only prospective application.
Bond v. Munro, 28
597 ;
Moore v. Gill, supra;
Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Thornton, 115 Ga.
798 ( 42 S. E. 236 );
Bank of Norman Park v. Colquitt County, 169 Ga.
534 ( 150 S. E. 841 );
605 ( 183 S. E. 495 );
Walker County Fertilizer Co.
861 ( 193 S. E. 770 );
Smith v. Pindar Real Estate Co., 187 Ga.
229 ( 200 S. E. 131 );
439 (22 *294*294 S. E. 2d 96). The act entitled, “Modification of Permanent Alimony Judgments,” neither expressly nor by implication shows a legislative intent that it should be applied to alimony judgments rendered prior to the passage of the act.
The demurrers of the defendant should have been sustained, and the action dismissed.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., not participating.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“Unless a statute, either expressly or by necessary implication, shows that the General Assembly intended that it operate retroactively, it will be given only prospective application.”)
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.