Fried v. Fried
| Decision Date | 12 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | 18202,Nos. 18194,s. 18194 |
| Parties | FRIED v. FRIED (two cases). |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Edward F. Taylor and David L. Mincey, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Jos. W. Popper and T. Arnold Jacobs, Macon, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
When this case was previously before this court, Fried v. Fried, 208 Ga. 861, 69 S.E.2d 862, it was there held that, where a wife sues for a total divorce and prays for permanent alimony, and the evidence shows, as it does in this case, that she has no separate estate or means of support, and that her husband is amply able to support her, a verdict which grants a divorce to the wife but denies permanent alimony is contrary to law so far as alimony is concerned. On another trial the jury returned a verdict allowing $125 a month as alimony and support of child, but denying any alimony or support for the wife. The wife filed a motion for new trial and also tendered her motion for modification of the verdict and decree, each of which complained of the charge in reference to alimony, and because the verdict allowing alimony to the child was inadequate. The court in separate orders overruled the motion for new trial and the motion to modify the judgment and decree, to which rulings the wife excepted. The husband in a cross-bill excepted to an order denying his motion to dismiss the motion for new trial and motion to modify, the insistance being that he had paid and the wife had accepted the alimony fixed by the jury on the second trial for the child, and that she was now estopped to complain of the verdict. Held:
1. In the record of the second trial there is no substantial difference in the evidence from that adduced upon the former trial, and accordingly, whether the ruling upon the evidence when previously before this court was right or wrong, it has become the law of the case. Jackson v. Jackson, 209 Ga. 85, 70 S.E.2d 592, and cases cited.
2. In the absence of any evidence that the wife was guilty of misconduct, other than as contended on the first trial, the court erred in charging the jury to the effect that it was the duty of the husband to support the wife when living separately, according to his ability and to his condition in life, 'unless the wife has forfeited the claim she has on the husband for support by her misconduct.'
3. The sum of $125 per month awarded to the infant child as permanent alimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...her. 3 Fried v. Fried, 211 Ga. 149, 84 S.E.2d 576 (1954). See Brown v. Brown, 230 Ga. 566, 198 S.E.2d 182 (1973); Fried v. Fried, 209 Ga. 854, 76 S.E.2d 395 (1953); Gardner v. Gardner, 206 Ga. 669, 58 S.E.2d 416 (1950); Aud v. Aud, 199 Ga. 526, 34 S.E.2d 655 (1945); Simmons v. Simmons, 194 ......
-
Thompson v. Thompson, S10F1231.
...and still repudiate a final judgment, as those benefits belong to the child. See Coley, supra at 655(1), 58 S.E. 205; Fried v. Fried, 209 Ga. 854, 76 S.E.2d 395 (1953). While we are mindful that a former spouse may depend upon the benefits of a final decree for maintenance, as the dissenter......
-
Fort v. Fort, F-262
...put in jeopardy by the appeal, does not thereby waive her right to appeal from an order modifying the original allowance. Fried v. Fried, 209 Ga. 854, 76 S.E.2d 395; Coley v. Coley, 128 Ga. 654, 58 S.E. 205; Delbridge v. Sears, 179 Iowa 526, 160 N.W. 218; Horn v. Horn, 142 App.Div. 848, 127......
-
Fried v. Fried
...condition in life, "unless the wife has forfeited the claim she has on the husband for support by her misconduct." See Fried v. Fried, 209 Ga. 854, 76 S.E.2d 395, 396. Subsequently, and before the call of the case for retrial on the issue as to alimony, the wife filed a motion to determine ......