Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

207 Ga. 335

61 S.E.2d 500

Moore v. Moore

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 11, 1950

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1950-10-11

Relies on Coleman v. Coleman · Raines v. Raines · Pace v. Bergquist

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-10-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2017

7 state decisions

301950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Head, Justice.

¶1 1. “Temporary alimony is fixed by the judge in his discretion, and upon the passage of the order allowing it, the right to the amount allowed becomes fixed and absolute until revoked or modified by the judge, and may be enforced by writ of fieri facias or by attachment for contempt; and the failing to apply for the remedy to enforce it during the pendency of the suit can not operate to deprive the plaintiff of the right to sue for it after the final verdict disallowing permanent alimony. The granting of temporary alimony is a question for the court; the finding or refusal of permanent alimony is for the jury.” Gibson v. Patterson, 75 Ga. 549 (2); Raines v. Raines, 138 Ga. 790 (76 S. E. 51); Gorham v. Gorham, 147 Ga. 433 (94 S. E. 555); Fauver v. Hemperly, 178 Ga. 424 (173 S. E. 82); Snider v. Snider, 183 Ga. 734 (189 S. E. 512); Coleman v. Coleman, 205 Ga. 92 (52 S. E. 2d, 438).

¶2 (a) Nothing to the contrary was ruled in Pace v. Bergquist, 173 Ga. 112 (159 S. E. 678). In the latter case the trial judge undertook to extend a consent order for temporary alimony beyond the date of the final verdict and decree in the divorce case.

¶3 2. The defendant stated that he was employed regularly, and earned $1.10 per hour. He did not offer testimony of any fact or circumstance tending to show any inability on his part to pay the amount awarded as temporary alimony, but stated that he “wouldn’t pay it.” The evi *336 dence and the defendant’s statement demanded the finding that he was in contempt of court.

No. 17240. October 11, 1950. George W. Westmoreland and G. G. Allen, for plaintiff in error. Frank C. Gross and Ollie Mae Stowe, contra.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.
/207/ga/335 · .json · Public domain