Napier v. Napier

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Napier v. Napier

166 S.E.2d 583, 119 Ga. App. 143, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1969

Docket44147

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 166 S.E.2d 583 (Napier v. Napier) 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

Napier v. Napier, 166 S.E.2d 583, 119 Ga. App. 143, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

1. A decree for alimony in future monthly instalments granted in a sister State is enforceable in this State as to all sums due and unpaid thereunder upon which recovery is sought, and does not lack the quality of finality because not first reduced to a judgment in the foreign state stating the total accrued amount sought to be recovered. McLendon v. McLendon, 66 Ga. App. 156 (1) (17 SE2d 252); Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 (44 SE2d 136); Henderson v. Henderson, 209 Ga. 148 (71 SE2d 210), s. c. 86 Ga. App. 812 (72 SE2d 731). The motion to dismiss was properly overruled.

2. Where the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit setting out factual averments sufficient to authorize recovery, and no counter-affidavit or other evidence is offered by the defendant, the motion should be granted. Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co., 220 Ga. 298 (138 SE2d 580).

3. Where “there was no good reason for anticipating a reversal of the judgment below, and, consequently, the case must have been brought to this court for the purpose of delay only,” a motion as made by the appellee in this case for 10% damages for delay should be granted. Rahal v. Titus, 110 Ga. App. 122, 133 (138 SE2d 68) and cit.

Judgment affirmed with damages.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

1. A decree for alimony in future monthly instalments granted in a sister State is enforceable in this State as to all sums due and unpaid thereunder upon which recovery is sought, and does not lack the quality of finality because not first reduced to a judgment in the foreign state stating the total accrued amount sought to be recovered. McLendon v. McLendon, 66 Ga. App. 156 (1) (17 SE2d 252); Creaden v. Krogh, 75 Ga. App. 675 (44 SE2d 136); Henderson v. Henderson, 209 Ga. 148 (71 SE2d 210), s. c. 86 Ga. App. 812 (72 SE2d 731). The motion to dismiss was properly overruled.

2. Where the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit setting out factual averments sufficient to authorize recovery, and no counter-affidavit or other evidence is offered by the defendant, the motion should be granted. Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co., 220 Ga. 298 (138 SE2d 580).

3. Where “there was no good reason for anticipating a reversal of the judgment below, and, consequently, the case must have been brought to this court for the purpose of delay only,” a motion as made by the appellee in this case for 10% damages for delay should be granted. Rahal v. Titus, 110 Ga. App. 122, 133 (138 SE2d 68) and cit.

Judgment affirmed with damages.

Bell, P. J., and Eberhardt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E.2d 583, 119 Ga. App. 143, 1969 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napier-v-napier-gactapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack