Redman v. Redman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Redman v. Redman

176 S.E. 62, 49 Ga. App. 661, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 523

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1934

Docket23679

StatusPublished

This text of 176 S.E. 62 (Redman v. Redman) 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

Redman v. Redman, 176 S.E. 62, 49 Ga. App. 661, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 523 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This is an action arising under the workmen’s compensation law, and is a contest between two women, Georgia Bedman and Pearl Bedman, each of whom claims to have been the lawful wife of Leonard Bedman at the time of his. death. The director of the Department of Industrial Delations, who tried the ease, upon conflicting evidence, held that Georgia Bedman was the lawful wife of the deceased employee at the date of his death, and awarded compensation to her. Pearl Bedman appealed to the superior court, and that court affirmed the award. After a careful reading of the evidence, we are satisfied that the finding and the award of the director are amply authorized, and that the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs. Guerry, J., dissents.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This is an action arising under the workmen’s compensation law, and is a contest between two women, Georgia Bedman and Pearl Bedman, each of whom claims to have been the lawful wife of Leonard Bedman at the time of his. death. The director of the Department of Industrial Delations, who tried the ease, upon conflicting evidence, held that Georgia Bedman was the lawful wife of the deceased employee at the date of his death, and awarded compensation to her. Pearl Bedman appealed to the superior court, and that court affirmed the award. After a careful reading of the evidence, we are satisfied that the finding and the award of the director are amply authorized, and that the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre, J., concurs. Guerry, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E. 62, 49 Ga. App. 661, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redman-v-redman-gactapp-1934.