Spooner v. Spooner

97 S.E. 670, 148 Ga. 612, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 463
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 11, 1918·No. No. 896·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinions

Atkinson, J.

1. While a person is temporarily non compos mentis he is not authorized to maintain a suit in his own name. Thomas v. Thomas, 145 Ga. Ill (88 S. E. 584). But where, though very weak in mind, he has enough -capacity to understand the nature of a particular cause of action, and will enough to desire to bring a suit thereon, he may do so without a next friend or guardian. Calhoun v. Moseley, 114 Ga. 641 (40 S. E. 714).

(a) On conflicting evidence the judge was authorized to hold that the plaintiff had sufficient mental capacity to institute and prosecute her suit for temporary alimony without a next friend or guardian.

2. Taking into consideration the condition of the husband, and the station in life of the parties, and the necessities of the wife, there was no abuse of discretion in allowing plaintiff $150 per month as temporary alimony.

3. Under all the circumstances of the case the allowance of $3500 as attorneys’ fees was an abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed in pari, and reversed in part.

All the Justices concur, ecocept

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

Spooner v. Spooner, 97 S.E. 670, 148 Ga. 612, 1918 Ga. LEXIS 463 (Ga. 1918).

97 S.E. 670 (Spooner v. Spooner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McMillan v. McMillan
2021 Ohio 698 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
Boyd v. Edwards
446 N.E.2d 1151 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1982)
Moore v. Moore
53 S.E.2d 343 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)
Parrish v. Rigell
188 S.E. 15 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Carroll v. Carroll
160 S.E. 342 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
Akin v. Akin
135 S.E. 402 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1926)
Huley v. Huley
114 S.E. 184 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Spooner v. Spooner
100 S.E. 571 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)