DocketNumber: 14410.
Citation Numbers: 24 S.E.2d 46, 195 Ga. 297
Judges: ATKINSON, Justice.
Filed Date: 1/13/1943
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
In a suit for divorce and alimony, where temporary alimony is awarded, so long as the litigation is pending the trial judge is authorized to exercise his discretion in continuing his order granting temporary alimony.
On September 29, 1942, the husband filed in the trial court a petition praying for a modification of the order of March 31, 1942, awarding temporary alimony and attorney's fees to the wife, on the grounds, that his financial ability to pay alimony had been diminished, and that the first verdict of the jury "established that the defendant [husband] was blameless, and that the plaintiff's [wife's] separation from the defendant is due entirely to her wilful and voluntary choice, and that she is not entitled to alimony." On the hearing the court passed an order denying the petition, leaving in force the original order of March 31, 1942. To this order the husband excepted.
At the time the court passed the order refusing to modify the previous order granting temporary alimony, there were issues in the divorce case still pending. A judgment can not be treated as final so long as either of the parties thereto had the right to have the same reviewed by the Supreme Court; and if it is so reviewed, it is not final until their judgment is made the judgment of the trial court. Cohen v. Southern Express Co.,
The Code provides: "Whenever . . a suit by the wife . . shall be pending, the wife may . . apply to the presiding judge . . for an order granting . . temporary alimony pending the cause." Code, § 30-202. "In arriving at the proper provision, *Page 299 the judge shall consider the peculiar necessities of the wife, growing out of the pending litigation." § 30-203.
In Holleman v. Holleman,
Accordingly, it was within the discretion of the trial judge to continue in force, or modify, his previous order pertaining to temporary alimony and attorney's fees.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Jackson v. Jackson , 231 Ga. 751 ( 1974 )
Hagan v. Hagan , 209 Ga. 313 ( 1952 )
Reynolds v. Reynolds , 217 Ga. 234 ( 1961 )
Coleman v. Coleman , 240 Ga. 417 ( 1977 )
Brown v. Brown , 224 Ga. 90 ( 1968 )
Pierce v. Pierce , 241 Ga. 96 ( 1978 )
Seaboard Air Line Railroad v. Whitman , 107 Ga. App. 375 ( 1963 )
Dougherty County v. Snelling , 132 Ga. App. 540 ( 1974 )
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Russell , 103 Ga. App. 553 ( 1961 )
Chlupacek v. Chlupacek , 226 Ga. 520 ( 1970 )
Ferster v. Ferster , 220 Ga. 319 ( 1964 )
Dickey v. Mingledorff , 110 Ga. App. 454 ( 1964 )
McKay v. McKay , 93 Ga. App. 42 ( 1955 )
Childs v. Childs , 203 Ga. 9 ( 1947 )
Coleman v. Coleman , 205 Ga. 92 ( 1949 )
Aud v. Aud , 199 Ga. 714 ( 1945 )
Mathews v. Mathews , 204 Ga. 247 ( 1948 )
Powell v. Powell , 200 Ga. 379 ( 1946 )
West v. Dorsey , 167 Ga. App. 233 ( 1983 )
Lexington Developers, Inc. v. O'NEAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ... , 143 Ga. App. 440 ( 1977 )