Horsley v. Horsley
Decision Date | 28 June 1973 |
Citation | 280 So.2d 155,291 Ala. 782 |
Parties | In re Dortha Lee HORSLEY v. John Henry HORSLEY. Ex parte John HORSLEY. SC 410. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Civil Appeals.
Caine O'Rear, Jr., Jasper, for petitioner.
James E. Wilson, Jasper, for respondent.
Petition of John Horsley for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to review and revise judgment and decision of that court in Horsley v. Horsley, 50 Ala.App. 445, 280 So.2d 150 (1973) is denied.
In denying the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, this court does not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving all of the language used or the statements of law made in the opinion of this case in the Court of Civil Appeals. See Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. Coleman, 230 Ala. 432, 161 So. 829; Opelika Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 286 Ala. 460, 241 So.2d 331; Cooper v. State, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So.2d 108; and Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Brindley, 289 Ala. 755, 266 So.2d 150.
Writ denied.
In the instant case, it appears from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that decree was rendered in favor of the wife granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the action of the trial court in granting the wife "no award of alimony was arbitrary," and reversed.
The allowance of alimony in the instant case is authorized by Title 34, §§ 31, 32, Code 1940, which recite:
With respect to granting alimony and attorney's fees this court has said:
"The granting of alimony, including the allowance of attorneys' fees, is, of course, within the sound judicial discretion of the court to be regulated by many factors, such as the husband's ability to pay, the wife's station in life, her financial worth and income, the nature of the conduct of the respective parties, etc.--Russell v. Russell, 247 Ala. 284, 24 So.2d 124; Steiner v. Steiner, 254 Ala. 260, 48 So.2d 184; Morgan v. Morgan, 203 Ala. 516, 84 So. 754; Phillips v. Phillips, 221 Ala. 455, 129 So. 3; Code 1940, Title 34, §§ 32, 33...." Davis v. Davis, 255 Ala. 488, 493, 51 So.2d 876, 880.
The husband applies for certiorari and asserts that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that "... the learned trial court erred to reversal when it failed to grant a reasonable sum to the wife as alimony from the income of the husband as such failure was an abuse of judicial discretion."
In order to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals is correct in its holding as aforesaid, this court would necessarily be required to review the evidence in the transcript which was before the Court of Civil Appeals.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Pankey
...to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). WRIT HOUSTON, JOHNSTONE, and STUART, JJ., concur. LYONS and HARWOOD, JJ., concur specially. MOORE, C.J., and BROWN, J......
-
Smith v. State (Ex parte Smith)
...the Court of Criminal Appeals' December 22, 2000, opinion addressing the allegations of error in the guilt phase. See Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). We conclude, however, that reversible error did occur during the penalty phase of Smith's trial, and we remand the ca......
-
Ex parte Z.W.E.
...understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of lawPage 38 in the Court of Civil Appeals' opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So. 2d 155 (1973)." Ex parte Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, P.C., 266 So. 3d 1083, 1084 (Ala. 2018). I thus respectfu......
-
Bailey v. Bailey
...Ala.Civ.App., 338 So.2d 416 (1976); Hamaker v. Hamaker, supra; Horsley v. Horsley, 50 Ala.App. 445, 280 So.2d 150, cert. den., 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973). After a careful consideration of the facts in this case, we are impressed with the trial court's effort to equitably dispose of ......