Bridges v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 18 May 1933
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 333.
• Citation: 227 Ala. 144,148 So. 816
• Parties: BRIDGES v. BRIDGES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

148 So. 816

227 Ala. 144

BRIDGES v. BRIDGES.

6 Div. 333.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 18, 1933

Rehearing Denied June 22, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. M. Walker, Judge.

Bill by Janie Bridges against J. S. Bridges. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, respondent appeals.

Affirmed.

Thos J. Wingfield, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Clark Williams, of Birmingham, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a bill filed by a divorced wife against her former husband and seeks to have entered a decree making provision for the support of their minor child, and that its custody be awarded to her.

The bill shows that the decree of divorce neither awarded the custody of the child nor made provision for its support and maintenance, but alleges that she and respondent agreed that the respondent should pay complainant $30 a month for that purpose, and that, though he is well able to do so, and has an income of, to wit, $200 a month, he declines to pay her more than $15 a month, and that such amount is inadequate for that purpose.

The theory which appellant invokes, that the chancery court loses control of such matters when it renders a decree of divorce without reservation, has been abandoned by this court. Epps v. Epps, 218 Ala. 667, 120 So. 150; Ex parte Allen, 221 Ala. 393, 128 So. 801; Worthington v Worthington, 224 Ala. 237, 139 So. 334; Aiken v Aiken, 221 Ala. 67, 127 So. 819.

When the decree embraces the subject, the chancery court, without a reservation of the power, may upon a change of circumstances at any time thereafter modify the provisions of the decree to meet such changed conditions. Authorities supra.

The nature and effect of an agreement between parents fixing the amount of the provision for the maintenance of the child have been discussed and largely settled in our case of Worthington v. Worthington, supra. Such an agreement is not conclusive upon the court of chancery since it pertains to the welfare of infants, but it is subject to change or approval by that court as the circumstances may justify. Worthington v. Worthington, supra; 19 Corpus Juris, 251.

In the decree of divorce, that court could have provided for the custody of the child and its support and maintenance, but whether so or not, a proceeding thereafter concerning such matters may be begun in the same court by supplemental proceedings, though they are treated in many respects as original (19 Corpus Juris, 353, 354, 355), with the right to review by appeal as any other original proceeding. Smith v. Smith, 218 Ala. 701, 120 So. 167. The chancery court has general jurisdiction respecting the duty of the father to support his minor children. Gabbert v. Gabbert, 217 Ala....