Black v. Black

• Decision Date: 08 February 1917
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 482
• Citation: 199 Ala. 228,74 So. 338
• Parties: BLACK v. BLACK.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

74 So. 338

199 Ala. 228

BLACK v. BLACK.

6 Div. 482

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 8, 1917

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; James E. Horton, Jr. Chancellor.

Suit by Cora Black against J.B. Black. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Suit by the wife against the husband for divorce, on the ground of drunkenness and cruelty, and for alimony, including reasonable attorney's fees. The chancellor retained full control over the cause, ordering that the decree be subject to change or modification as to custody of the children and the amount and manner of payment of alimony as the court may deem proper in the future.

There was evidence tending to show the habits of respondent as to the use of intoxicants and as to acts of violence upon the wife, cruel threats, etc., and that he was convicted and fined in the county court for assault and battery upon his wife. There was also evidence to show that the respondent owned 215 acres of land, variously estimated to be worth from $1,000 to $2,500, on which was located his home and a storehouse in which he conducted a mercantile business worth from $500 to $1,200. He also owns some live stock, wagons buggies, etc., all of which property appears to be unincumbered. Respondent is also engaged in farming and in the active practice of the medical profession, and the chancellor concluded that his annual income exceeded $500 but was "probably less than $1,000."

The complainant owns a small farm adjoining that of her husband given her by her father, and she is now residing with her father.

From the decree rendered in favor of complainant, the respondent appeals.

J.C. Milner, of Vernon, for appellant.

Walter Nesmith, of Vernon, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

The complainant in the court below was awarded a divorce on the ground of cruelty, under the provisions of section 3795 of the Code. A discussion of the evidence would serve no good purpose, and on the contrary would but bring into bold relief the details of the domestic unhappiness of these parties. Suffice it to say, the evidence in this record has been most carefully considered, and we have reached the conclusion that there is no just reason for disturbing the decree of the court below.

Much stress is laid by counsel for appellant on what they term a condonation on the part of the wife, because of her return to her husband and living with him for more than two months after...