Heaton v. Davis

Citation112 So. 756,216 Ala. 197
Decision Date31 March 1927
Docket Number7 Div. 667
PartiesHEATON et al. v. DAVIS.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill in equity by Missouri Heaton, revived on her death, in the name of P.H. Davis, as administrator, against Lewis Heaton and Lloyd Heaton. From a decree for complainant, defendants appeal. Corrected and affirmed.

Thos E. Orr, of Albertville, for appellants.

Chas J. Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Missouri Heaton left the 40-acre farm where she had lived with her husband, one of the appellants, and then filed her bill for a divorce and alimony, alleging cruelty on the part of her husband. May 27, 1924, the court awarded complainant $25 a month as alimony pendente lite and ascertained the amount then due to be $350, entering a decree for that amount. The husband renews here his complaint of the decree, alleging that, when the conduct of the wife is considered, she was entitled to nothing, or nearly nothing, and that, however that be decided, she was as well provided with the goods of this world as he, and for that reason was hardly entitled to the favorable consideration of the court. The evidence on these issues taken before the register, who found that the wife was entitled to $40 a month, has had due consideration. The wife had two children (sons) by a former husband, one of whom at least was dependent upon her, and at the time of her departure from the common dwelling place had a daughter, two years of age, the child of defendant, and was big with another. She owned 40 acres of land on Sand Mountain, or, perhaps, an interest in the land, the net income from which, as well as we are able to figure it out, was about $50 a year. For what else she had between the time of the separation and the decree she had been dependent on her relatives and friends none of whom, it may be inferred, had means enough to move the envy of the average man, but were generous enough to respond to her needs to the extent of their ability. Defendant husband also had two children by a former marriage. Evidently these children by former marriages brought about the occasions for ill-feeling between the parties. But no fault is attributed to complainant, save that at times she was fussy and quarrelsome. Her complaint, on the other hand, is that with the encouragement and approval of defendant she was cruelly treated by his elder son, then nearly of age, and that her children by her former husband were excluded from the home. Referring now to the other aspect of defendant's case, the facts seem to be that defendant had a home, the title to which, however, he had transferred to his eldest son while the latter was still a minor, but which he occupied and controlled as fully in every respect as if it were his own, and that, in fact, he had conveyed it to his son with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud complainant of her alimony, which at the time he saw in prospect. Moreover, he earned at his trade between $50 and $125 a month, the difference in the estimates depending upon the viewpoint of the witnesses. Considering the situation of the parties, our judgment is that complainant was entitled to support and maintenance pending her suit and that she could not have been reasonably expected to subsist on less than the amount awarded to her. Nor does it affect the propriety of the decree that since its rendition the defendant husband has suffered an accident which may have affected his earning capacity. That circumstance would be proper for consideration, if there were an application to the trial court for a modification of the decree in its future operation; but, as will appear, the decree can have no future--that is, no future to be affected by amendment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Spiliotis v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • February 11, 1982
    ...557, 559, 560, 109 N.E. 557 (1915). The following cases also allow recovery by a wife's personal representative. Heaton v. Davis, 216 Ala. 197, 198-199, 112 So. 756 (1927). Miller v. Clark, 23 Ind. at 376-377. Dinet v. Eigenmann, 80 Ill. 274, 279 (1875), Id. 86 Ill. 83 (1877), and Pfirshing......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, 6 Div. 608.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 27, 1948
    ...... [37 So.2d 653] . not be considered. Moseley v. Alabama Power Co., 246. Ala. 416, 21 So.2d 305; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Davis, 242 Ala. 235, 5 So.2d 480; Morgan-Hill Paving. Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 88, 134 So. 480. . . The. policies were properly admitted. ...Murray, 238 Ala. 158, 189 So. 877, 878;. Windham v. Windham, 234 Ala. 309, 174 So. 500; Ex. parte Allan, 220 Ala. 482, 125 So. 612; Heaton v. Davis, 216 Ala. 197, 112 So. 756. . . It is. our opinion that the sum of $85 per month for the separate. maintenance of the wife ......
  • Ryan v. Ryan, 6 Div. 562
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 15, 1960
    ...decree itself, which, by its own terms, indicates that it was intended only to provide for the wife's support.' See also Heaton v. Davis, 216 Ala. 197, 112 So. 756. We add that the allowance of temporary alimony pending the suit and for attorney's fees for services of attorneys representing......
  • Horwitz v. Horwitz, 2040760.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • May 19, 2006
    ...at the time of her death constitutes a liability which survive[s] in favor of her personal representative." Heaton v. Davis, 216 Ala. 197, 199, 112 So. 756, 757 (1927). The husband's death will not end the wife's right to have the judgment satisfied from his estate. See Solinger v. Solinger......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT