Nichols v. Nichols

Supreme Court of Georgia

Nichols v. Nichols

76 S.E.2d 400, 209 Ga. 811, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 411

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 8, 1953

Docket18219

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 76 S.E.2d 400 (Nichols v. Nichols) 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

Nichols v. Nichols, 76 S.E.2d 400, 209 Ga. 811, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 411 (Ga. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Head, Justice.

1. An amendment to the wife’s petition, alleging that the child of the parties had been born subsequently to the filing of the divorce action, and praying for permanent alimony for the support of the child, would have been germane to her action for divorce and alimony. Any lack of pleadings or prayers was cured by the judgment and decree, and that part of the judgment awarding alimony for the minor child is not void. Auld v. Schmelz, 199 Ga. 633 (2) (34 S. E. 2d, 860); Barbee v. Barbee, 201 Ga. 763, 768 (41 S. E. 2d, 126); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 206 Ga. 540 (57 S. E. 2d, 668); Guthas v. Guthas, 207 Ga. 177 (60 S. E. 2d, 370).

(a) It will be presumed that the judgment for alimony for the support and maintenance of the minor child was based on sufficient evidence. Moss & Co. v. Stokeley, 95 Ga. 675, 676 (22 S. E. 692); Mell v. McNulty, 185 Ga. 343, 344 (195 S. E. 181).

2. The trial judge did not err in finding the defendant in contempt of court for failure to make the payments for the support of his minor child.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., not participating.

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

Head, Justice.

1. An amendment to the wife’s petition, alleging that the child of the parties had been born subsequently to the filing of the divorce action, and praying for permanent alimony for the support of the child, would have been germane to her action for divorce and alimony. Any lack of pleadings or prayers was cured by the judgment and decree, and that part of the judgment awarding alimony for the minor child is not void. Auld v. Schmelz, 199 Ga. 633 (2) (34 S. E. 2d, 860); Barbee v. Barbee, 201 Ga. 763, 768 (41 S. E. 2d, 126); Armstrong v. Armstrong, 206 Ga. 540 (57 S. E. 2d, 668); Guthas v. Guthas, 207 Ga. 177 (60 S. E. 2d, 370).

(a) It will be presumed that the judgment for alimony for the support and maintenance of the minor child was based on sufficient evidence. Moss & Co. v. Stokeley, 95 Ga. 675, 676 (22 S. E. 692); Mell v. McNulty, 185 Ga. 343, 344 (195 S. E. 181).

2. The trial judge did not err in finding the defendant in contempt of court for failure to make the payments for the support of his minor child.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E.2d 400, 209 Ga. 811, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-nichols-ga-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack