The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. Seabrook & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error,cited: On the first contention: Page v. Page, 189 Mass. 85 (75 N. E. 92); Cureton v. Cureton, 132 Ga. 745 (2); Civil Code (1910), § 2978. As to alimony after remarriage: 14 Cyc. 787; 1 Ruling Case Law, 934, § 80; Id. 950, § 96; . 60 Am. Dec. 672, notes; Cohen v. Cohen, 150 Calif. 99 (88 Pac. 267, 62 L. R. A.. 975, note); Cole v. Cole, 142 Ill. 19 (31 N. E. 109, 34 Am. St. R. 56,19 L. R. A. 811); Wetmore v. Wetmore, 162 N. Y. 503 (56 N. E. 997, 48 L. R. A. 666).
Gignilliat & O’Neal, J. S. Harrison, Morris H. Bernstein, contra,.cited: On the first proposition: Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U. S. 1 (28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1068, 20 Ann. Cas. 1061); Coffee v. Coffee, 101 Ga. 787; Woodall v. Woodall, 147 Ga. 676; Wilkins v. Wilkins, 146 Ga. 382; Cureton v. Cureton, supra (distinguished); Stanfield v. Stanfield, (Okl., 1917) 168 Pac. 912. As to re-marriage: McGill v. McGill, 101 Kans. 324 (166 Pac. 501); King v. King, 38 Ohio St. 370; 14 Cyc. 787, and cit.; 1 Ruling Case Law, 950. As to demurrer: Douglas &c. Ry. Co. v. Swindle, 2 Ga. App. 550.