Ex parte Edwards

• Citation: 183 Ala. 659,62 So. 775
• Parties: Ex parte EDWARDS.
• Decision Date: 15 May 1913
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

62 So. 775

183 Ala. 659

Ex parte EDWARDS.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 15, 1913

Petition by G.B. Edwards for mandamus directed to the Hon. J.C.B Gwin, judge of the city court of Bessemer, to require him to vacate and set aside an order and decree affirming or confirming the report of the special master granting to Maggie Edwards alimony and solicitor's fees, and adjudging that petitioner and Maggie Edwards were legally married. Mandamus awarded.

Perry &amp Bumgardner, of Bessemer, and Thetford & Blakey, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Pinkney Scott, of Bessemer, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

We are not much impressed with the idea that complainant in the court below will be entitled to relief, either by way of divorce or by way of an annulment of his marriage with defendant, on any ground alleged in his bill, though that will remain an open question until the final decree shall be rendered. We state our impression, for the reason that complainant's denial of the lawfulness of his marriage with defendant and defendant's application for allowances pendente lite made it necessary in the court below to determine provisionally the question of marriage vel non between the parties.

The decree by which defendant was divorced from one of her former husbands may have been collusively obtained; that is, there may have been an understanding that no defense would be interposed, and that the defendant there should be allowed to marry again. But the court there had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, and, for aught appearing the ground of divorce there set up existed, and was proved by trustworthy testimony. As for the decree allowing the defendant to marry again, that rested entirely in the chancellor's discretion, and neither that nor the decree of divorce can now be assailed collaterally on any ground so far taken against them. Harrison v. Harrison, 19 Ala. 499; 14 Cyc. 723.

The essential equity of the wife's application for allowances depended upon the disputed validity of the marriage between the parties. This question then should have been determined by the court, though the inquiry as to the amount of the allowances to be made was properly referred to the register. However, the evidence as to the main fact was reported to the court by the register, and, on exceptions, the court properly adjudged the fact. In this there was nothing of which the petitioner in this proceeding can complain.

As...