Mosely v. Mosely

182 S.E. 849, 181 Ga. 543, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 157
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 14, 1935
DocketNo. 10800
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 182 S.E. 849 (Mosely v. Mosely) 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
Mosely v. Mosely, 182 S.E. 849, 181 Ga. 543, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 157 (Ga. 1935).

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

1. Subsequent voluntary cohabitation will render void a judgment for temporary alimony and attorney’s fees for representing the wife in the alimony proceedings. Code of 1933, § 30-217; Weeks v. Weeks, 160 Ga. 369 (127 S. E. 772).

2. Where a suit for alimony was based on separation wherein the wife separated from the husband on account of cruel treatment by the husband, the cause of action was different from the cause of action in a subsequent suit by the wife for alimony and attorney’s fees, based on separation wherein the husband, after the renewed cohabitation above mentioned, abandoned the wife and went off to live with another woman. [544]*544The ease differs from Cox v. Cox, 163 Ga. 93 (135 S. E. 504), in which the same facts were alleged in both cases; in one the facts were alleged to constitute cruel treatment; in the other the facts were alleged to constitute wilful and continued desertion.

No. 10800. December 14, 1935. G. M. Nottingham and A. E. Gilmorp Jr., for plaintiff in error. B. Habenicht Cason and Harry N. Nottingham, contra.

3. In the circumstances stated above, pendency of the first suit at the time of institution of the second suit may not, under the Code of 1933, § 3-601, be pleaded in abatement of the second suit.

4. At the hearing prior to the appearance term, the judge did not err for any reason assigned, after introduction of evidence, in overruling the plea in abatement and in granting temporary alimony and attorney’s fees. No point was made that the ruling on the plea in abatement was premature. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Margeson v. Givens
203 S.E.2d 186 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Embry v. Embry
186 S.E.2d 104 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1971)
Moore v. Moore
108 S.E.2d 704 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Brown v. Brown
78 S.E.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Dempsey v. Dempsey
46 S.E.2d 156 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Powell v. Powell
27 S.E.2d 393 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Hamby v. Pye
24 S.E.2d 201 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1943)
Williams v. Williams
21 S.E.2d 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Thomas v. Smith
194 S.E. 502 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 S.E. 849, 181 Ga. 543, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosely-v-mosely-ga-1935.