Thompson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thompson v. Thompson

124 S.E.2d 76, 217 Ga. 649, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 351

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 8, 1962

Docket21505

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 S.E.2d 76 (Thompson v. Thompson) 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

Thompson v. Thompson, 124 S.E.2d 76, 217 Ga. 649, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 351 (Ga. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

The exception here is to a judgment holding the defendant in contempt for his failure to pay past-due alimony instalments. On the hearing the defendant sought to justify his failure to make such payments solely on the ground of his financial inability to do so. In bringing the case to this court for review the plaintiff in error elected to bring up the evidence by incorporating it in the bill of exceptions, but respecting the completeness of the evidence so brought up, the bill of exceptions, which the trial judge certified to a-s true, contains the following positive recital: “There was other testimony relative to his ability and [his] inability to pay alimony *650 payments under the decree, but counsel for both parties cannot sufficiently recall the details of this testimony to include the same in this brief of his evidence and no stenographic report was made of the testimony.” The burden is upon him asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record (Smith v. State, 203 Ga. 636, 47 SE2d 866), and. this can be done in the case at bar only by a consideration of all of the testimony introduced on the hearing and since it clearly appears from a recital in the bill of exceptions that all of the evidence which the judge heard on the trial of this proceeding respecting the defendant’s financial ability or his lack of such ability to comply with the requirements of the alimony judgment has not been brought to this court, we will assume that the judgment rendered by the trial judge is correct and affirm it. As authority for this ruling, see Attaway v. Duncan, 206 Ga. 230 (56 SE2d 269); Bowman v. Bowman, 203 Ga. 206 (45 SE2d 415); and Saliba v. Saliba, 201 Ga. 681 (40 SE2d 732), and the cases there cited.

Submitted January 9, 1962 Decided February 8, 1962 Rehearing denied February 20, 1962. A. J. Whitehurst, for plaintiff in error. Alexander, Vann & Lilly, Boy M. Lilly, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Candler, Justice.

The exception here is to a judgment holding the defendant in contempt for his failure to pay past-due alimony instalments. On the hearing the defendant sought to justify his failure to make such payments solely on the ground of his financial inability to do so. In bringing the case to this court for review the plaintiff in error elected to bring up the evidence by incorporating it in the bill of exceptions, but respecting the completeness of the evidence so brought up, the bill of exceptions, which the trial judge certified to a-s true, contains the following positive recital: “There was other testimony relative to his ability and [his] inability to pay alimony *650 payments under the decree, but counsel for both parties cannot sufficiently recall the details of this testimony to include the same in this brief of his evidence and no stenographic report was made of the testimony.” The burden is upon him asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record (Smith v. State, 203 Ga. 636, 47 SE2d 866), and. this can be done in the case at bar only by a consideration of all of the testimony introduced on the hearing and since it clearly appears from a recital in the bill of exceptions that all of the evidence which the judge heard on the trial of this proceeding respecting the defendant’s financial ability or his lack of such ability to comply with the requirements of the alimony judgment has not been brought to this court, we will assume that the judgment rendered by the trial judge is correct and affirm it. As authority for this ruling, see Attaway v. Duncan, 206 Ga. 230 (56 SE2d 269); Bowman v. Bowman, 203 Ga. 206 (45 SE2d 415); and Saliba v. Saliba, 201 Ga. 681 (40 SE2d 732), and the cases there cited.

Submitted January 9, 1962 Decided February 8, 1962 Rehearing denied February 20, 1962. A. J. Whitehurst, for plaintiff in error. Alexander, Vann & Lilly, Boy M. Lilly, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E.2d 76, 217 Ga. 649, 1962 Ga. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-thompson-ga-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack