TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Luke v. Luke

Luke v. Luke, 124 S.E. 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 2, 1924
Docket
No. 15246
Judges
Stephens
Citations
124 S.E. 55632 Ga. App. 7381924 Ga. App. LEXIS 618

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Stephens, J.

1. Where a trial court has not been adjourned five days before the commencement of the next regular term, as provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 4877, it is nevertheless open and may render judgments as in term time before its actual adjournment, although the judgments rendered are within five days of the commencement of the next regular term of the court. Horkan v. Beasley, 11 Ga. App. 273 ( 75 S. E. 341 ); King v. Sears, 91 Ga. 577 ( 18 S. E. 830 ).

2. A judgment in an alimony suit against a surety upon a supersedeas bond given by the defendant for the “eventual condemnation money” may, when the remittitur from the appellate court is received, affirming the judgment, be rendered for the full amount of all the accrued unpaid installments due at the time of the entering of the judgment upon the supersedeas bond, which necessarily represents the eventual condemnation money. Civil Code (1910), §6165; Lockwood v. Saffold, 1 Ga. 72 ; Holleman v. Holleman, 69 Ga. 676 ; Osborne v. Osborne, 146 Ga. 344 ( 91 S. E. 61 ). This case is distinguishable from the cases of Corbin v. McCrary, 23 Ga. App. 780 ( 99 S. E. 472 ); Kendrick v. Battle, 24 Ga. App. 676 ( 101 S. E. 812 ); McCrary v. Corbin, 25 Ga. App. 262 ( 103 S. E. 194 ).

3. Attorney’s fees awarded the plaintiff are recoverable in her name. Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 125 Ga. 491 ( 54 S. E. 537 ).

4. Such a judgment hears interest. Civil Code (1910), §3432.

5. The judgment rendered against the surety upon the supersedeas bond was not excessive in amount, and was not otherwise illegal:

6. The affidavit of illegality set out no defense, and was properly stricken on demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1926: 11938: 119262026peak 1926 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Thompson v. State199 S.E. 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
  2. O'Neal v. State134 S.E. 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Thompson v. State199 S.E. 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
  2. O'Neal v. State134 S.E. 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 9

DepthCaseCited by
King v. Sears, 18 S.E. 830 (Ga. 1893) 34
Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 54 S.E. 537 (Ga. 1906) 27
Osborne v. Osborne, 91 S.E. 61 (Ga. 1916) 16
Horkan v. Beasley, 75 S.E. 341 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912) 12
Corbin v. McCrary, 99 S.E. 472 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919) 5
McCrary v. Corbin, 103 S.E. 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920) 2
Kendrick v. Battle, 101 S.E. 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920) 1
Holleman v. Holleman, 69 Ga. 676 (1882) 19
Lockwood v. Saffold, 1 Ga. 72 (1846) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list