Barrington v. Barrington

Decision Date13 May 1921
Docket Number3 Div. 485
Citation89 So. 512,206 Ala. 192
PartiesBARRINGTON v. BARRINGTON.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.

Bill by Mary W. Barrington against Richard L. Barrington for divorce. From a decree overruling demurrers to the bill, respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Sayre and Thomas, JJ., dissenting.

Charles Wallace Collins, of Washington, D.C., and Holloway & Hill and Henry C. Meader, all of Montgomery, for appellant.

John S Tilley, Steiner, Crum & Weil and Hill, Hill, Whiting &amp Thomas, all of Montgomery, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The bill of complaint is filed under section 3795 of the Code as amended by the act of September 30, 1919 (Gen.Acts 1919. p. 878), which authorizes divorces as follows:

"To wife in case of cruelty or nonsupport by husband. In favor of the wife when the husband has committed actual violence on her person, attended with danger to life or health, or when from his conduct there is reasonable apprehension of such violence; or when the wife has lived, or shall have lived separate and apart from the bed and board of the husband for five years and without support from him for two years next preceding the filing of the bill, and she has bona fide resided in this state during said period."

Under a bill filed by this complainant under a former amendment of section 3795 (Gen.Acts 1915, p. 370), similar to the present amendment, relief was denied on the ground that that provision was not retroactive upon a period of separation antedating the act. Barrington v. Barrington, 200 Ala. 315, 76 So. 81. In that case the constitutionality of the act was attacked, but decision thereon was pretermitted as unnecessary. The question was, however, discussed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice McClellan, with the conclusion that the act was free from constitutional objection, a view in which the present writer fully concurred.

With respect to the present bill, its sufficiency and its equity are challenged by demurrer, and the questions presented are (1) Whether its allegations of fact are sufficiently specific; and (2) whether the act under which it seeks relief is in violation of one or both of the constitutional guaranties of "due process of law," and of "the equal protection of the laws," as found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution.

1. Every fact necessary to the relief prayed, as prescribed by the statute itself, is categorically alleged in the bill, and it must be pronounced sufficient in that respect.

2. Due process of law guaranteed by the federal Constitution has been defined in terms of the equal protection of the laws, that is, as being secured by laws operating on all alike, and not subjecting the individual to the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice. Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692, 11 Sup.Ct. 224, 34 L.Ed. 816; Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462, 11 Sup.Ct. 577, 35 L.Ed. 225. "In order that a statute may comply with the necessary requirements as to due process of law, it must not violate the limitations as to classification imposed by the constitutional inhibition as to the denial of the equal protection of the laws. Thus the test with respect to the requirement of due process of law seems to be that if the law under consideration operates equally upon all who come within the class to be affected, embracing all persons who are or may be in like situation and circumstances, and the designation of the class is reasonable, not unjust or capricious or arbitrary, but based upon a real distinction, the law does operate uniformly, and if, added to this, the law is enforced by usual and appropriate methods, the requirement as to 'due process of law' is satisfied." 6 R.C.L. p. 372, § 367.

When the subject of legislation is one exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state, the federal court recognizes a wide discretion in the exercise of its powers with respect to the details of legislation and the exceptions that may properly be made to its operation. Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173, 30 Sup.Ct. 644, 54 L.Ed. 987; Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563, 31 Sup.Ct. 132, 54 L.Ed. 1157. And the regulation of marriage and divorce has been fully recognized as a matter within the exclusive province of the Legislatures of the states. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 Sup.Ct. 723, 31 L.Ed. 654; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 Sup.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 26 Sup.Ct. 525, 50 L.Ed. 867, 5 Ann.Cas. 1; Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190, 193, 29 Am.Rep. 739; 9 R.C.L. p. 245, § 5; Cooley on Const. Limitations, 154.

The offense imputed to the statute now under consideration, as an argument for its unconstitutionality, is that it authorizes the wife alone to sue for and obtain a divorce because of a status for separation and nonsupport for which the husband may not have been responsible either as to its origin or continuation.

So far as the policy of the statute is concerned,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Ex parte Melof
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1999
    ...of the Justices No. 338, supra. In fact, no clearer exposition of these principles need be sought than is found in Barrington v. Barrington, 206 Ala. 192, 89 So. 512 (1921), where this Court "Due process of law guaranteed by the federal Constitution has been defined in terms of the equal pr......
  • Karczewski v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • June 27, 1967
    ...a denial of the equal protection of the laws. White v. Crook, 251 F.Supp. 401 (M.D.Ala. 1966). Furthermore, Barrington v. Barrington, 206 Ala. 192, 89 So. 512, 17 A.L.R. 789 (1921), cited by defendant, is not applicable here. In that case, the Supreme Court of Alabama upheld a state statute......
  • Vernon v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1944
    ... ... Realization Corp., 239 Ala. 580, 195 So. [245 Ala. 636] ... 758; Almon v. Morgan County, Ala.Sup., 16 So.2d 511 ... And in Barrington v. Barrington, 206 Ala. 192, 89 ... So. 512, 513, 17 A.L.R. 789, it was said: "Due process ... of law guaranteed by the federal Constitution has ... ...
  • Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Glover
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1945
    ... ... the rights of all who should properly be brought within their ... provisions. Barrington v. Barrington , 206 ... Ala. 192, 89 So. 512, 17 A. L. R. 789 ... Due ... process of law does not prohibit classification for ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT