Boozer v. Boozer

Supreme Court of Georgia

Boozer v. Boozer

60 S.E.2d 150, 207 Ga. 52, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 390

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1950

Docket17095

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 60 S.E.2d 150 (Boozer v. Boozer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boozer v. Boozer, 60 S.E.2d 150, 207 Ga. 52, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 390 (Ga. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

Where there was evidence that the husband was the owner of a S4000 equity in two dwelling houses and a vacant lot on Kirkwood Avenue, S. E., certain tools and equipment used in his business as a plumbing contractor, weekly profits from his business of 8200 per week, and that his wife had lived with him for forty years and raised six children, all of whom had reached their majority, and *53 that she had no independent income and was unable to work; and where the judgment for permanent alimony gave the wife a one-half interest in the equity in the real estate, $25 per week, and $100 as attorney’s fees — this court cannot say as a matter of law that the judgment was excessive.

No. 17095. June 13, 1950. Thomas L. Slappey, for plaintiff. Clarke & Anderson, defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

Where there was evidence that the husband was the owner of a S4000 equity in two dwelling houses and a vacant lot on Kirkwood Avenue, S. E., certain tools and equipment used in his business as a plumbing contractor, weekly profits from his business of 8200 per week, and that his wife had lived with him for forty years and raised six children, all of whom had reached their majority, and *53 that she had no independent income and was unable to work; and where the judgment for permanent alimony gave the wife a one-half interest in the equity in the real estate, $25 per week, and $100 as attorney’s fees — this court cannot say as a matter of law that the judgment was excessive.

No. 17095. June 13, 1950. Thomas L. Slappey, for plaintiff. Clarke & Anderson, defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.E.2d 150, 207 Ga. 52, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boozer-v-boozer-ga-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack