Weeks v. Weeks, (No. 4769.)
| Decision Date | 20 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4769.) |
| Citation | 127 S.E. 772,160 Ga. 369 |
| Parties | WEEKS. v. WEEKS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Peter W. Meldrim, Judge.
Action by Lillian R. Weeks against Earl P. Weeks. Defendant's motion to vacate Judgment granting plaintiff temporary alimony was overruled and he brings error. Reversed.
On May 27, 1924, Lillian R. Weeks brought her application against her husband, Earl P. Weeks, for temporary and permanent alimony and counsel fees. On June 2, 1924, the Judge awarded the wife $50 per month as temporary alimony and $50 as attorney's fees. On June 6, 1924, the husband filed his petition for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment. In answer the wife denied that she had cruelly treated her husband, and further alleged that her husband had forgiven and condoned the alleged acts of cruel treatment, by reason of the fact that since May 24, 1924, the date of separation, alleged in the petition, petitioner and defendant had repeatedly lived and cohabited together as husband and wife, and continue so to do. On the trial of the divorce case the wife testified that there had been complete condonation of the alleged acts of cruel treatment, and that since the filing of the petition for divorce she and petitioner had lived together as husband and wife. On December 2, 1924, the divorce case came on for a hearing, and the jury returned a verdict denying a divorce to either party. No motion for a new trial was filed by the husband. On December 11, 1924, the husband moved to vacate the order granting the wife temporary alimony, and to pass an order relieving him from the payment of any further temporary alimony. In answer to this motion, the wife alleged that she and her husband were not living together; that she had actually lived separate and apart from him since prior to the award of temporary alimony, and was then living in a bona fide state of separation, and had so lived since said award; that "she and her husband did cohabit upon occasion, " but since their separation had actually lived apart in separate domiciles; and that her husband was a habitual drunkard, and had been guilty of acts of adultery. On the hearing of this motion, the petition and answer in the divorce case were introduced. A witness testified that, at about 1 o'clock a. m. on June 14, 1924, the wife was seen sitting in the lap of one Jackson in the rear of an automobile on Tybee road; she and Jackson being alone in the car. The wife testified that it was untrue that she was sitting in Jackson's lap, but admitted that she was with him at about 10 o'clock p. m., on the 13th of June; Jackson having taken her out Tybee road to see if she could get a party to stand her bond in a bail-trover proceeding brought by her husband against her to recover her furniture.
When the wife was offered as a witness in her own behalf, counsel for the husband objected to her giving any evidence, upon the ground that, the action being founded upon adultery, she was incompetent to testify in the case. The court overruled this objection, and held that the wife had the right to deny the charges that she was seen sitting in the lap of Jackson. To this ruling the husband excepted. After the wife testified, the husband was offered as a witness in his own behalf. Counsel for the wife objected to the husband being permitted to testify, on the ground that, the action being upon the ground! of adultery, the husband was incompetent to testify. The husband, if so permitted, would have testified that he and certain persons found his wife in an automobile parked on the side of Tybee road, that she was sitting on the rear seat in the lap of one Jackson, and that she and Jackson were in the act of committing adultery. The court sustained the objection of counsel for the wife, and refused to permit the husband to testify to said facts. To this ruling the husband excepted. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court took the case under advisement, and reserved his decision until January 2, 1925, when he passed an order overruling the motion to vacate the judgment granting the wife temporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamby v. Pye
...24 S.E.2d 201 195 Ga. 366 HAMBY v. PYE et al. No. 14364.Supreme Court of GeorgiaJanuary 14, 1943 ... Overstreet, 144 Ga. 294, 87 S.E. 27; Weeks v ... Weeks, 160 Ga. 369, 127 S.E. 772; Bowden v ... Bowden, 180 Ga ... ...
-
Margeson v. Givens, 28383
...and voluntary cohabitation of the parties rendered void any provision made for alimony, including attorney fees. Weeks v. Weeks, 160 Ga. 369(1), 127 S.E. 772; Mosely v. Mosely, 181 Ga. 543(1), 182 S.E. 849; Hamby v. Pye, 195 Ga. 366(2), 24 S.E.2d 201. The rule was held to be different where......
-
Embry v. Embry, s. 26796
...general rule that a decree for temporary alimony is rendered void by the subsequent voluntary cohabitation of the parties. Weeks v. Weeks, 160 Ga. 369(1), 127 S.E. 772; Mosely v. Mosely, 181 Ga. 543(1), 182 S.E. 849; Thomas v. Smith, 185 Ga. 243, 244, 194 S.E. 502; Williams v. Williams, 194......
-
Colvin v. Colvin, 18892
...will be rescinded, if the parties afterwards cohabit or live together, as husband and wife, by mutual consent.' In Weeks v. Weeks, 160 Ga. 369, 371, 127 S.E. 772, 774, it was said: 'If, after such alimony was granted to the wife when she and her husband were living separately or in a bona f......