Huiet v. Callaway Mills

29 S.E.2d 106, 70 Ga. App. 538, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 42
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 2, 1944
Docket30223.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 S.E.2d 106 (Huiet v. Callaway Mills) 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
Huiet v. Callaway Mills, 29 S.E.2d 106, 70 Ga. App. 538, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 42 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Opinion

Parker, J.

1. Where an employee is a married woman living with her husband and she voluntarily quits her employment without good cause connected with her most recent work, solely for the purpose of joining and living with her husband, a preacher, at a distant point to which he has been transferred, which point is too far for her to commute to her work, such employee thereby disqualifies herself from receiving compensation under the Georgia unemployment compensation act of 1937, as amended. Code, Ann., Chapter 54-6; Huiet v. Schwob Manufacturing Co., 196 Ga. 855 (27 S. E. 2d, 743).

2. The registration by such married woman for work made at the place to which she has removed, and her filing of a claim at such place, which registration and filing of a claim have been regularly made in accordance with the provisions of the act as amended as contained in the Code Ann., §§ 54-609 and 54-611, and the signing by her and filing at the time of a required printed form as a condition precedent to the filing of the claim in which she stated, “I am unemployed, able to work and available for work and I register for work,” where there is no other evidence as to her ability to work or availability for work, is not sufficient to authorize the commissioner of the Department of Labor of this State to find that she is “able to work, and is available for work.” Huiel v. Schwob Mfg. Co., supra.

3. The superior court did not err in reversing the Board of Review of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, and in disallowing benefit payments to the claimant.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., oonour. *539 Clifford Walker, Otis L. Hathcock, for- plaintiff in error. Lovejoy & Mayer, contra.

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

Related

Parsons v. Employment Security Commission
379 P.2d 57 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1963)
Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Cochran Foil Co.
331 S.W.2d 903 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1960)
Deptartment of Industrial Relations v. Tomlinson
36 So. 2d 496 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 S.E.2d 106, 70 Ga. App. 538, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 42, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huiet-v-callaway-mills-gactapp-1944.