Edwards v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 22 March 1888
• Parties: EDWARDS v. EDWARDS.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 896

84 Ala. 361

EDWARDS v. EDWARDS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 22, 1888

Appeal from chancery court, Choctaw county; THOMAS W. COLEMAN Chancellor.

Bill in equity for divorce. The bill was filed by the appellee William H. Edwards, against Sarah A. Edwards, the appellant and sought a divorce a vinculo matrimonii in favor of the complainant, on the ground of abandonment by the defendant. The appellant answered, denying the allegations of the bill as to her voluntarily abandoning the board and bed of the complainant, and filed her petition for counsel fees and alimony pendente lite. There was a decree on the pleadings and proof granting the complainant the relief prayed for,-a divorce from the defendant. On the same day that this decree was rendered there was, by consent, a petition for a sum in gross, as permanent alimony for the defendant, filed by her; and an order of reference was made to ascertain how much, if any, alimony pendente lite and permanent alimony should be allowed the petitioner. The appellee answered the petition for alimony, and denied that any alimony of any kind should be allowed the petitioner, appellant in this appeal, on the ground that she had sufficient property of her own-her separate statutory estate-to defray the expenses of the suit, and to support herself and children. Issue was joined on these facts, and the register reported that the petitioner was entitled to the sum of $50 as counsel fees, $75 as alimony pendente lite, and $600 as permanent alimony. Exceptions were taken to the register's report, and the chancellor sustained the said exceptions, set aside the report of the register, and rendered a decree disallowing any counsel fees, allowing $25 for alimony pendente lite, and an annuity of $60, to be paid semi-annually until further ordered, as permanent alimony, and decreeing costs of both petitions against the petitioner. The decree of the chancellor sustaining the exceptions to the report of the register as to the amount of alimony which should be allowed the petitioner, not allowing the petitioner any sum gross as permanent alimony, and decreeing that the petitioner should pay the costs of the petition and the proceedings thereon, are here assigned as error.

Taylor & Elmore, for appellant.

Glover & Camathan and T. N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

STONE C.J.

When the former suit between these parties was before us (80 Ala 97) we said: ...