Thompson v. Thompson, 7626.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1931
• Docket Number: No. 7626.,7626.
• Citation: 157 S.E. 628,172 Ga. 165
• Parties: THOMPSON. v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

172 Ga. 165

157 S.E. 628

THOMPSON.

v.THOMPSON.

No. 7626.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 12, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Divorced wife filed petition seeking attachment for contempt of court by failure to pay alimony. Husband in response filed motion to set aside alimony decree on ground that since rendition of judgment wife had become nonresident and was committed to sanitarium in another state, and had recently inherited estate and was not under necessity for separate support, and that husband was unable to pay alimony. Wife in answer to motion denied allegations thereof, and alleged that decree for alimony was rendered by consent and prepared by attorney for husband and that motion to set aside judgment made no issue on validity of judgment or on attorney's authority to consent thereto.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; G. H. Howard, Judge.

Action by Lillian B. Thompson, by guardian, against L. B. Thompson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

J. W. Weaver and A. L. Henson, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Paul Donehoo, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, J.

In 1929 a woman by next friend filed her petition seeking an attachment for contempt of court by failure to pay alimony in accordance with a decree rendered in 1909, awarding to the petitioner $15 a month during her life or widowhood. It was alleged that no alimony had been paid since 1925, and that the sum of $780 was due. In response to the rule nisi the defendant set up that the decree for alimony was based on a second verdict awarding the respondent a total divorce in 1909, and in so far as it relates to alimony the verdict was ineffective because it was not authorized by the pleadings; that since rendition of the judgment the petitioner had become a nonresident and was committed to a sanitarium for the insane in another state; that she had recently inherited an estate of a stated value and was not under necessity for a separate support; that respondent was unable to pay alimony; and that he had paid all sums alleged to be due up to and including July 1, 1928. He prayed that the judgment be set aside, and that petitioner be enjoined from prosecuting the contempt proceeding. By amendment to the answer it was alleged that respondent in his petition for divorce had set forth a schedule of all of his property, and that all of the scheduled property had been consumed in the payment of sums made to the petitioner on...