Ex parte Hilton

• Decision Date: 11 June 1925
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 425
• Citation: 213 Ala. 573,105 So. 647
• Parties: Ex parte HILTON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

105 So. 647

213 Ala. 573

Ex parte HILTON.

6 Div. 425

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1925

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1925

Original petition by Robert Lee Hilton for mandamus to Hon. William M Walker, as Judge of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. Writ denied.

M.B Grace, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

G.M Edmonds, of Birmingham, for respondent.

SAYRE J.

Petitioner's wife, Lillian Clyde Hilton, filed her bill on the equity side of the circuit court of Jefferson alleging that she was a bona fide resident of this state, and praying, on grounds stated, for a decree of divorce from petitioner in this cause, a resident of the state of South Carolina, for the custody of their children, for permanent alimony, for alimony pendent lite, and for an allowance on account of attorney's fee. The defendant in that cause appeared personally and made defense. On complainant's motion a reference was ordered for the ascertainment of alimony pendente lite and an attorney's fee, and, in due course a decree was entered fixing such allowances. Petitioner's application for the writ of mandamus serves as an emergency appeal to review the decree. Ex parte Edwards, 183 Ala. 659, 62 So. 775.

Petitioner does not question the propriety of the awards so far as concerns the amount thereof. His argument is directed to the proposition that the court had no jurisdiction to render the decree--this, because the matrimonial domicile of the parties was in South Carolina, and because, as he alleges, complainant is not a bona fide resident of this state, having come here for the sole purpose of prosecuting her suit for a divorce.

There appears no reason to doubt the bona fides of complainant's residence in this state save only the fact that she left the domicile of petitioner, and has, ostensibly at least, maintained her residence in this state for the length of time prescribed by the statute as a prerequisite to a suit for divorce, and this, of course, will not warrant a finding that there has been a fraudulent effort to confer jurisdiction on the courts of this state. Complainant's case, not yet adjudicated, is that she was driven from petitioner's home in South Carolina by his cruelty, and was under necessity to seek a home and means of livelihood elsewhere, and this interpretation of her domiciliary status on the case thus far developed, must be accepted and complainant treated as a bona fide litigant in the courts of...