
    HUDDLESTON v. HUDDLESTON.
    No. 13018.
    October 11, 1939.
    Rehearing denied November 17, 1939.
   Duckworth, Justice.

While a share cropper who, as the evidence shows, owns no property or money and has no means of acquiring money save the sale of his farm crop will not be held in contempt of court, before the maturity and sale of his crops, for non-payment of an alimony judgment (Banks v. Banks, 188 Ga. 181, 3 S. E., 2d, 717), and while a husband who, as tne evidence shows, is without money or property and unable to obtain employment will not be held in contempt of court for non-payment of alimony (Poole v. Wright, 188 Ga. 255, 3 S. E. 2d, 731), yet where, as in the instant case, the evidence showed that the defendant owned an automobile, and was silent as to its value or the amount of the mortgage thereon, the judge was authorized to find that no bona fide attempt had been made to comply with the order of the court, and the judgment holding him to be in contempt will not be disturbed. Wheeless v. Wheeless, 157 Ga. 213 (121 S. E. 241) ; Garrett v. Garrett, 175 Ga. 455 (165 S. E. 230).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concw.

8. B. Wallace and Lester Dickson, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas O. Denmark, contra.  