Bailes v. Bailes
| Decision Date | 13 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 755 |
| Parties | BAILES v. BAILES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; R.B. Carr, Judge.
Bill in equity by Emma G. Bailes against H.C. Bailes. From the decree, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Young & Longshore, of Anniston, for appellant.
Merrill & Field, of Anniston, for appellee.
This bill is by the wife against the husband for alimony, without divorce. Courts of equity grant relief in such cases independent of statute, on equitable principles, to enforce the duty of the husband to support and maintain the wife when he is at fault and refuses to provide for her in the home, or when, because of his misconduct or cruelty, she is compelled to leave him, and in granting such relief the court deals only with his income. Murray v. Murray, 84 Ala. 363, 4 So. 239; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414 39 So. 237; Clisby v. Clisby, 160 Ala. 572, 49 So. 445, 135 Am.St.Rep. 110; Rearden v. Rearden, 210 Ala. 129, 97 So. 138.
This appeal is from the decree of the court overruling respondent's exceptions to the report of the register on reference fixing the amount of the allowance to the wife; no complaint being made as to the final decree settling the equities between the parties.
The exceptions filed by the respondent are thus stated:
These exceptions do not meet the requirement of the statute and rule of practice governing such matters, and they were overruled without error. Code of 1923, § 6598; rule 94, Chancery Practice (Code of 1923, p. 936); Ex parte Cairns, 209 Ala. 358, 96 So. 246; Woodruff v. Smith, 127 Ala. 65, 28 So. 736.
Moreover, the testimony before the register was taken ore tenus, and was in sharp conflict as to the amount of the respondent's income. Some of this testimony tended to show that his net income was from $1,000 to $1,500 per year.
The rule applicable is that the finding of the register is accorded the weight of the verdict of a jury, and will not be disturbed unless the court on a review of the evidence is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bay Minette Land Co. v. Stapleton
... ... Bidwell v. Johnson, 195 Ala. 547, 70 So. 685; Ex ... parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 499, 103 So. 558; Bailes v ... Bailes, 216 Ala. 569, 114 So. 185; Adalex Const. Co ... v. Atkins, 214 Ala. 53, 106 So. 338 ... The ... appeal is to correct ... ...
-
Hardy v. Hardy
...262 Ala. 454, 79 So.2d 546; Clisby v. Clisby, 160 Ala. 572, 49 So. 445; Rearden v. Rearden, 210 Ala. 129, 97 So. 138 and Bailes v. Bailes, 216 Ala. 569, 114 So. 185. According to appellant's brief, his income tax return for 1968 showed a net income of less than $700 and his 1969 return show......
-
O'Rear v. O'Rear
...and the page or pages on which the testimony is to be found (Code 1923, § 6598; Warren v. Lawson, 117 Ala. 339, 23 So. 65; Bailes v. Bailes, 216 Ala. 569, 114 So. 185), there is nothing in the rule or the statute that prevents the judge or court from exercising the discretion to examine any......
-
Patterson v. Lovelady
... ... review of the evidence is convinced that it is palpably and ... plainly wrong. Bailes v. Bailes, 216 Ala. 569, 114 ... So. 185; Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; ... Adalex Construction Co. v. Atkins et al., 214 Ala ... ...