Ruben v. Ruben

Supreme Court of Georgia

Ruben v. Ruben

162 S.E. 134, 174 Ga. 34, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 8

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 21, 1931

DocketNo. 8525

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E. 134 (Ruben v. Ruben) 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

Ruben v. Ruben, 162 S.E. 134, 174 Ga. 34, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 8 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

Mrs. Rosa Ruben brought suit for divorce against her husband, O. N. Ruben, for temporary and permanent alimony and attorney’s fees, alleging that they were bona fide in a state of separation; that the husband owned certain property; and that he was guilty of cruel treatment and non-support. The husband filed an answer denying the material allegations of the petition. After hearing evidence the court awarded to the wife temporary alimony and attorney’s fees. The amount is not stated anywhere in the record. Under the evidence this court can not say that the judge abused his discretion in awarding temporary alimony and attorney’s ' fees, as it is not contended that the amount awarded is excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., who dissents.

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

Beck, P. J.

Mrs. Rosa Ruben brought suit for divorce against her husband, O. N. Ruben, for temporary and permanent alimony and attorney’s fees, alleging that they were bona fide in a state of separation; that the husband owned certain property; and that he was guilty of cruel treatment and non-support. The husband filed an answer denying the material allegations of the petition. After hearing evidence the court awarded to the wife temporary alimony and attorney’s fees. The amount is not stated anywhere in the record. Under the evidence this court can not say that the judge abused his discretion in awarding temporary alimony and attorney’s ' fees, as it is not contended that the amount awarded is excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, C. J., who dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 134, 174 Ga. 34, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruben-v-ruben-ga-1931.