183 Ga. 734 | Ga. | 1937
In September, 1935, Mrs. Katie B. Snider sued her husband, T. C. Snider,, for divorce and temporary and permanent alimony and , attorney’s fees, later striking her prayer for divorce. At interlocutory hearing of an application for temporary alimony and counsel fees, the judge awarded $12 per month for the support of the wife and minor child, and $25 as fees. The husband excepted, and the judgment was affirmed. Snider v. Snider, 182 Ga. 592 (186 S. E. 562). Upon a petition for an attachment for contempt, brought by the wife against her husband for failing to pay temporary alimony, the judge, on a hearing, ordered payment of the arrearage of alimony by a named date, or that in default thereof the defendant be committed to jail. To this order the husband excepted, and the judgment was affirmed. Snider v. Snider, 182 Ga. 701 (186 S. E. 723). When the case came on for trial on the question of permanent alimony, while the jury were out, considering the case, the plaintiff’s attorney made an oral motion for an award of additional attorney’s fees, which was objected to by defendant’s attorney. The court
In Gibson v. Patterson, 75 Ga. 549, it was said: “Temporary alimony is fixed by the judge in his discretion, and upon passage of the order allowing it the right to the amount allowed becomes fixed and absolute until revoked or modified by the judge, and may be enforced by writ of fieri facias or by attachment for contempt; and the failing to apply for the remedy to enforce it during the pendency of the suit can not operate to deprive the plaintiff of the right to sue for it after the final verdict disallowing permanent .alimony.” And it has also been held that during the life of the order or judgment for temporary alimony the court may, after due notice, change the terms of the same and may reduce /the amount allowed, or, where it has been shown that the attorney for the wife has been compelled to render additional services, may increase the amount of it. While the court on the final trial of the- permanent alimony case had lost jurisdiction of the same when he signed the bill of exceptions filed by the wife for the purpose of reviewing the judgment overruling her motion for a new trial, in view of the fact that the attorney had been compelled to render further service and might be compelled to still continue that service, the court did not err in allowing a reasonable amount as additional attorney’s fees.
Judgment affirmed.