Cureton v. Cureton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cureton v. Cureton

126 S.E.2d 666, 218 Ga. 88, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 435

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 25, 1962

Docket21665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 S.E.2d 666 (Cureton v. Cureton) 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

Cureton v. Cureton, 126 S.E.2d 666, 218 Ga. 88, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 435 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Justice.

Where an alimony judgment was obtained in rem against the real property of a nonresident husband, service being perfected by publication and the divorce petition having specifically prayed for a judgment against the property, such judgment is conclusive upon the husband. Thereafter, he may not urge its alleged invalidity, on the grounds [89]*89of lack of personal service and seizure, in response to an application for disbursement of funds held in the registry of the superior court from condemnation proceedings under the provisions of Code Ann. § 36-1104 et seq. Carter v. Bush, 216 Ga. 429, 430 (116 SE2d 568); Code § 110-502; Forrester v. Forrester, 155 Ga. 722 (118 SE 373); Pendley v. Tumlin, 181 Ga. 808, 811 (184 SE 283).

Argued June 13, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962. Marvin O’Neal, Jr., Casáandra E. Maxwell, for plaintiff in error. S. S. Robinson, Slaton Clemmons, Assistant U. S. Attorney, Eugene Gunby, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Jack L. Camp, Tax Commissioner, King •& Spalding, Charles H. Kirbo, contra.

The trial judge having correctly determined that the divorce and alimony decree was valid, he did not err in awarding the proceeds from the condemnation of the property to the wife.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Quillian, Justice.

Where an alimony judgment was obtained in rem against the real property of a nonresident husband, service being perfected by publication and the divorce petition having specifically prayed for a judgment against the property, such judgment is conclusive upon the husband. Thereafter, he may not urge its alleged invalidity, on the grounds [89]*89of lack of personal service and seizure, in response to an application for disbursement of funds held in the registry of the superior court from condemnation proceedings under the provisions of Code Ann. § 36-1104 et seq. Carter v. Bush, 216 Ga. 429, 430 (116 SE2d 568); Code § 110-502; Forrester v. Forrester, 155 Ga. 722 (118 SE 373); Pendley v. Tumlin, 181 Ga. 808, 811 (184 SE 283).

Argued June 13, 1962 Decided June 25, 1962. Marvin O’Neal, Jr., Casáandra E. Maxwell, for plaintiff in error. S. S. Robinson, Slaton Clemmons, Assistant U. S. Attorney, Eugene Gunby, J. M. B. Bloodworth, Jack L. Camp, Tax Commissioner, King •& Spalding, Charles H. Kirbo, contra.

The trial judge having correctly determined that the divorce and alimony decree was valid, he did not err in awarding the proceeds from the condemnation of the property to the wife.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 666, 218 Ga. 88, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cureton-v-cureton-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack