Estes v. Estes
| Decision Date | 18 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | 13693. |
| Citation | 14 S.E.2d 680,192 Ga. 100 |
| Parties | ESTES v. ESTES. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 16, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
A judgment for alimony based upon an agreement of the parties provided that the husband should pay $55 per month to the wife for the support of herself and minor child, and awarded to the wife certain realty. The husband brought a petition seeking to have the court declare that the judgment had been fulfilled, and that no further payments were due thereunder based upon an alleged understanding between the parties, at the time the agreement was entered into, that the payments provided for should cease upon the marriage or arrival at majority of the child. Held, that the petition was subject to general demurrer.
R B. Giles, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Wm S. Shelfer, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
The present writ of error is akin to Estes v. Estes, Ga.Sup., 14 S.E.2d 681. In an action for divorce by H. S. Estes against Mrs. Nancy Johnson Estes, the parties entered into an agreement settling the defendant wife's claim for alimony for the support of herself and minor child, which was made the judgment of the court. Mr. Estes filed a petition seeking to have the court declare that the judgment had been fulfilled and that no further payments were due thereunder. Mrs. Estes awarded, denying the material allegations of the petition, and further sought a rule for contempt against the plaintiff for his failure to make payments under the judgment. The rule for contempt was heard separately, and the judge entered a judgment to the effect that the plaintiff could not, as a matter of law, be held in contempt for failure to make payments under the judgment based on the agreement of the parties, for the reason that it was not made a part of the final verdict and decree of divorce thereafter rendered. Exceptions were taken to this judgment. Estes v. Estes, supra. Thereafter the judge dismissed the plaintiff's action on demurrer, and he excepted.
The judgment entered provided, in so far as material here, that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finley v. Finley
...1027; Cooper v. Matheny (1960), 220 Or. 390, 349 P.2d 812; Schrader v. Schrader (1947), 148 Neb. 162, 26 N.W.2d 617; Estes v. Estes (1941), 192 Ga. 100, 14 S.E.2d 680. See also 2 W. Nelson, Divorce and Annulment sec. 14.91, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1961).) The rationale of these cases and of our a......
-
Hemphill v. Hemphill
...judgment which is binding and enforceable and not the agreement. Allen v. Withrow, 215 Ga. 388, 110 S.E. 2d 663 (1959); Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 100, 14 S.E.2d 680 (1941). Plaintiff has taken some wording from a case quoted in Fowler v. Fowler, 206 Ga. 542, 57 S.E.2d 593 (1950), for its posi......
-
Pumphrey v. Pumphrey
...as any other contract. See Church v. Hancock, 261 N.C. 764, 136 S.E.2d 81; Kamper v. Waldon, 17 Cal.2d 718, 112 P.2d 1; Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 100, 14 S.E.2d 680. See also Dunham v. Dunham, 189 Iowa 802, 178 N.W. 551; Worthington v. Worthington, 207 Ark, 185, 179 S.W.2d 648; Annotation, 16......
-
Cawley v. Bennett
...in divorce cases must be construed in the same manner and under the same rules as all other contractual agreements); Estes v. Estes, 192 Ga. 100, 101, 14 S.E.2d 680 (1941) (where an agreement is incorporated into a divorce decree, the judgment is conclusive between the parties and cannot be......