Lewis v. Lewis

6 S.E. 918, 80 Ga. 706
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 11, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 6 S.E. 918 (Lewis v. Lewis) 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
Lewis v. Lewis, 6 S.E. 918, 80 Ga. 706 (Ga. 1888).

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

This was an attachment for contempt, granted upon the: motion of the wife, against the husband (the plaintiff in error), because of his failure to comply with a final decree in her favor for alimony. The plaintiff in error contends that the court below had no power to attach him for con-, tempt upon this ground; that this was a decree for money, : and was a final disposition of the case, and that its enforcement by attachment for contempt would be equivalent to 'imprisonment for debt, and therefore contrary to the constitution and laws of this State. .

We are of the opinion that when a court directs the payment of alimony by a husband to his wife, it is a duty he owes, not only to his wife but to the public, to comply with the order; and if he fails to perform that duty, we see no reason why the court cannot compel him to do so by an order of attachment, directing his imprisonment in [707]*707the event of his failure to comply with the order. Of course this is a power which should be carefully and cautiously exercised, and before granting the writ the court ought to be satisfied that there is good ground for the attachment; and such appears to have been the case here. This is a case in which the old adage applies, that “when a bird can singand will not sing, he must be made to sing.” When it appeared to the court that this defendant had the money to comply with the decree, and that he failed to comply with it, we think the court had the right and the power to imprison him until he did comply with it.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Rollins v. Campbell (In Re Rollins)
200 B.R. 427 (N.D. Georgia, 1996)
Smith v. Smith
330 S.E.2d 706 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1985)
Ensley v. Ensley
238 S.E.2d 920 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Henry v. Henry
154 S.E.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Gardner v. Gardner
388 P.2d 417 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1964)
Wilson v. Chumney
103 S.E.2d 552 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Lipton v. Lipton
86 S.E.2d 299 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Joel Bailey Davis Inc. v. Poole
22 S.E.2d 795 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Estes v. Estes
14 S.E.2d 681 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Brown v. Brown
193 S.E. 754 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Ex Parte Claude D. Birkhead
95 S.W.2d 953 (Texas Supreme Court, 1936)
Villa v. District Court of San Juan
45 P.R. 852 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1933)
Villa v. Corte de Distrito de San Juan
45 P.R. Dec. 879 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1933)
Heflinger v. Heflinger
159 S.E. 242 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Cunningham v. Cunningham
40 S.W.2d 46 (Texas Supreme Court, 1931)
Roberts v. Fuller
229 N.W. 163 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1930)
Cunningham v. Cunningham
299 S.W. 483 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
Clark v. Clark
278 S.W. 65 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1925)
Bales v. Bales
119 S.E. 635 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1923)
Going v. Going
148 Tenn. 522 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 S.E. 918, 80 Ga. 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-lewis-ga-1888.