Coleman v. Coleman

52 S.E.2d 438, 205 Ga. 92, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 524
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 16, 1949
Docket16574.
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 52 S.E.2d 438 (Coleman v. Coleman) 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
Coleman v. Coleman, 52 S.E.2d 438, 205 Ga. 92, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 524 (Ga. 1949).

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) “Temporary alimony is awarded to the wife, among other things, for the purpose of enabling her to contest all of the issues between herself and her husband in a proceeding for divorce and alimony.” Twilley v. Twilley, 195 Ga. 297 (24 S. E. 2d, 46). Where a judgment provides that attorney’s fees be paid to the attorney of record, such a provision will be construed as a judgment for the wife for the amount stated, and such payment may be enforced by contempt proceedings. Blackburn v. Blackburn, 201 Ga. 793 (1) (41 S. E. 2d, 519). Temporary alimony is in the discretion of the trial judge. Hightower v. Hightower, 202 Ga. 643 (44 S. E. 2d, 116).

The only issue at the hearing of a rule for contempt on account of a failure to pay the temporary alimony awarded is the ability or inability of the husband to make the delinquent payments. West v. West, 199 Ga. 143 (1) (33 S. E. 2d, 292); Arnold v. Arnold, 195 Ga. 304 (1) (24 S. E. 2d, 12). Having awarded the temporary alimony in the instant case, at which hearing the husband sought to establish an inability to pay *94 any alimony, and on the hearing for contempt the evidence by the husband as to his ability to pay being the same as on the hearing for temporary alimony, there was no abuse of discretion of the trial judge in holding the husband in contempt of court. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Portman v. Karsman
304 S.E.2d 399 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
McDonald v. McDonald
214 S.E.2d 493 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1975)
George v. George
207 S.E.2d 26 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Mason v. Mason
206 S.E.2d 479 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Margeson v. Givens
203 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Marger v. Miller
198 S.E.2d 709 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Edwards v. Edwards
160 S.E.2d 830 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
Brown v. Brown
160 S.E.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1968)
White v. Bowen
153 S.E.2d 706 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Walton v. Walton
153 S.E.2d 554 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1967)
Dickey v. Mingledorff
138 S.E.2d 735 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Crute v. Crute
70 S.E.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Harrison v. Harrison
65 S.E.2d 173 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Moore v. Moore
61 S.E.2d 500 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 S.E.2d 438, 205 Ga. 92, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-coleman-ga-1949.