Housley v. Wagner

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Housley v. Wagner

103 S.E. 880, 25 Ga. App. 474, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 16

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1920

Docket11523

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 880 (Housley v. Wagner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Housley v. Wagner, 103 S.E. 880, 25 Ga. App. 474, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 16 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Seabrook & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error,

cited: On the first contention: Page v. Page, 189 Mass. 85 (75 N. E. 92); Cureton v. Cureton, 132 Ga. 745 (2); Civil Code (1910), § 2978. As to alimony after remarriage: 14 Cyc. 787; 1 Ruling Case Law, 934, § 80; Id. 950, § 96; . 60 Am. Dec. 672, notes; Cohen v. Cohen, 150 Calif. 99 (88 Pac. 267, 62 L. R. A.. 975, note); Cole v. Cole, 142 Ill. 19 (31 N. E. 109, 34 Am. St. R. 56,19 L. R. A. 811); Wetmore v. Wetmore, 162 N. Y. 503 (56 N. E. 997, 48 L. R. A. 666).

Gignilliat & O’Neal, J. S. Harrison, Morris H. Bernstein, contra,

.cited: On the first proposition: Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1 (28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068, 20 Ann. Cas. 1061); Coffee v. Coffee, 101 Ga. 787; Woodall v. Woodall, 147 Ga. 676; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382; Cureton v. Cureton, supra (distinguished); Stanfield v. Stanfield, (Okl., 1917) 168 Pac. 912. As to re-marriage: McGill v. McGill, 101 Kans. 324 (166 Pac. 501); King v. King, 38 Ohio St. 370; 14 Cyc. 787, and cit.; 1 Ruling Case Law, 950. As to demurrer: Douglas &c. Ry. Co. v. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550.

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

Broyles, C. J.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Seabrook & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error,

cited: On the first contention: Page v. Page, 189 Mass. 85 (75 N. E. 92); Cureton v. Cureton, 132 Ga. 745 (2); Civil Code (1910), § 2978. As to alimony after remarriage: 14 Cyc. 787; 1 Ruling Case Law, 934, § 80; Id. 950, § 96; . 60 Am. Dec. 672, notes; Cohen v. Cohen, 150 Calif. 99 (88 Pac. 267, 62 L. R. A.. 975, note); Cole v. Cole, 142 Ill. 19 (31 N. E. 109, 34 Am. St. R. 56,19 L. R. A. 811); Wetmore v. Wetmore, 162 N. Y. 503 (56 N. E. 997, 48 L. R. A. 666).

Gignilliat & O’Neal, J. S. Harrison, Morris H. Bernstein, contra,

.cited: On the first proposition: Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1 (28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068, 20 Ann. Cas. 1061); Coffee v. Coffee, 101 Ga. 787; Woodall v. Woodall, 147 Ga. 676; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382; Cureton v. Cureton, supra (distinguished); Stanfield v. Stanfield, (Okl., 1917) 168 Pac. 912. As to re-marriage: McGill v. McGill, 101 Kans. 324 (166 Pac. 501); King v. King, 38 Ohio St. 370; 14 Cyc. 787, and cit.; 1 Ruling Case Law, 950. As to demurrer: Douglas &c. Ry. Co. v. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 880, 25 Ga. App. 474, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/housley-v-wagner-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack