Tillman v. Tillman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tillman v. Tillman

1 S.E.2d 676, 187 Ga. 567

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1939

DocketNo. 12649

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 676 (Tillman v. Tillman) 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

Tillman v. Tillman, 1 S.E.2d 676, 187 Ga. 567 (Ga. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

1. “On application for temporary alimony, the merits of the cause are not in issue, though the judge, in fixing the amount of alimony, may inquire into the cause and circumstances of the separation rendering the alimony necessary, and in his discretion may refuse it altogether.” Code, § 30-205. Nor will this court control the discretion of the judge in allowing temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, “unless that discretion has been flagrantly abused.” Brown v. Brown, 159 Ga. 323 (125 S. E. 713).

2. In the instant ease, the evidence did not demand a finding that the wife had abandoned her husband as contended by him (compare Brisendine v. Brisendine, 152 Ga. 745 (3), 111 S. E. 22; Pace v. Pace, 154 Ga. 712 (2), 115 S. E. 65; Akin v. Akin, 163 Ga. 18, 135 S. E. 402), and whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish the cruel treatment as alleged in the wife’s petition, on application of the foregoing principles the judge did not err, under the pleadings and the evidence, in awarding temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, the reasonableness of which is not contested. Pearson v. Pearson, 125 Ga. 132 (54 S. E. 194) ; George v. George, 130 Ga. 608 (61 S. E. 401) ; Walker v. Walker, 177 Ga. 743 (171 S. E. 292).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. 0. W. Roberts Jr., and Boykin & Boykin, contra.

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

Bell, Justice.

1. “On application for temporary alimony, the merits of the cause are not in issue, though the judge, in fixing the amount of alimony, may inquire into the cause and circumstances of the separation rendering the alimony necessary, and in his discretion may refuse it altogether.” Code, § 30-205. Nor will this court control the discretion of the judge in allowing temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, “unless that discretion has been flagrantly abused.” Brown v. Brown, 159 Ga. 323 (125 S. E. 713).

2. In the instant ease, the evidence did not demand a finding that the wife had abandoned her husband as contended by him (compare Brisendine v. Brisendine, 152 Ga. 745 (3), 111 S. E. 22; Pace v. Pace, 154 Ga. 712 (2), 115 S. E. 65; Akin v. Akin, 163 Ga. 18, 135 S. E. 402), and whether or not the evidence was sufficient to establish the cruel treatment as alleged in the wife’s petition, on application of the foregoing principles the judge did not err, under the pleadings and the evidence, in awarding temporary alimony and attorney’s fees, the reasonableness of which is not contested. Pearson v. Pearson, 125 Ga. 132 (54 S. E. 194) ; George v. George, 130 Ga. 608 (61 S. E. 401) ; Walker v. Walker, 177 Ga. 743 (171 S. E. 292).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. 0. W. Roberts Jr., and Boykin & Boykin, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 676, 187 Ga. 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tillman-v-tillman-ga-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack