Stodghill v. Stodghill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stodghill v. Stodghill

88 S.E. 676, 145 Ga. 101, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 191

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 676 (Stodghill v. Stodghill) 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

Stodghill v. Stodghill, 88 S.E. 676, 145 Ga. 101, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 191 (Ga. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

I. Where a husband who was proceeded against by his wife for temporary alimony left the county of his residence on the day the order nisi was granted, but on the day before the petition was filed, leaving his crop and taking none of his personal effects with him, and during the next month was arrested in a distant county on a criminal warrant charging abandonment of his minor children, and was brought back to the county where his wife resided, and there served with the alimony proceedings, and where it does not appear that during the husband’s absence he did any affirmative act expressive of an intention to change his residence to another county, the judge was authorized to find that he had not changed his residence, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the court wherein the alimony proceedings were instituted.

2. In resisting an application for alimony the husband is an incompetent witness to prove the wife’s adultery. Civil Code (1910), § 5861; Bishop v. Bishop, 124 Ga. 293 (52 S. E. 743) .

3. The judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing alimony, nor was the amount excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Evans, P. J.

I. Where a husband who was proceeded against by his wife for temporary alimony left the county of his residence on the day the order nisi was granted, but on the day before the petition was filed, leaving his crop and taking none of his personal effects with him, and during the next month was arrested in a distant county on a criminal warrant charging abandonment of his minor children, and was brought back to the county where his wife resided, and there served with the alimony proceedings, and where it does not appear that during the husband’s absence he did any affirmative act expressive of an intention to change his residence to another county, the judge was authorized to find that he had not changed his residence, and was subject to the jurisdiction of the court wherein the alimony proceedings were instituted.

2. In resisting an application for alimony the husband is an incompetent witness to prove the wife’s adultery. Civil Code (1910), § 5861; Bishop v. Bishop, 124 Ga. 293 (52 S. E. 743) .

3. The judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing alimony, nor was the amount excessive.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 676, 145 Ga. 101, 1916 Ga. LEXIS 191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stodghill-v-stodghill-ga-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack