Howell v. Howell
| Decision Date | 05 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 631. |
| Citation | 211 Ala. 415,100 So. 635 |
| Parties | HOWELL v. HOWELL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Osceola Kyle, Judge.
Bill for divorce by Saleta Howell against J. M. Howell. From a decree denying relief, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
Tennis Tidwell, of Albany, for appellant.
Eyster & Eyster, of Albany, for appellee.
This is a bill in equity by Saleta Howell against J. M. Howell seeking a divorce from the bonds of matrimony on the ground said defendant became addicted after marriage to habitual drunkenness. The defendant answered, and denied that he became addicted after their marriage to habitual drunkenness. The court on the hearing on pleading and proof denied complainant relief, dismissed her bill of complaint, and taxed her with the cost of the cause. The complainant appeals from this decree, and assigns it as error.
The complainant and defendant were married on November 18, 1919 they lived together about two years, and then separated.
Did the defendant become addicted to habitual drunkenness after their marriage? is the real question presented by the record and the burden of proof rests on the complainant. Moor v Moor (Ala. Sup.) 99 So. 316; section 3797, and section 3793, subd. 6, Code 1907, Gen. Acts 1911, p. 631, and as further amended by Gen. Acts 1919, pp. 839, 840. This court, in State v. Savage, 89 Ala. 8, 7 So. 7, 183, 7 L. R. A. 426, defined habit and drunkenness. It was approved in State v. Robinson, 111 Ala. 482, 20 So. 30, and it was quoted recently with approval in Moor v. Moor (Ala. Sup.) 99 So. 316, and we need not repeat it here.
The complainant knew before her marriage to the defendant that he drank occasionally to excess. She lived in the home of his father for two years prior to the marriage, and he resided there a part of the time. She was 30 years of age when they married. The defendant from the evidence did not contract the fixed habit of frequently getting drunk after their marriage. Before and since their marriage, from some of the evidence he did occasionally drink to excess, but this evidence does not pronounce him an habitual drunkard. He occasionally, not frequently, drank to excess; it was not habitual with him; sobriety was the rule, and occasional drinking to excess was the exception in his life. He could not be declared under the evidence as a person who became addicted after his marriage to complainant to habitual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Russell
...the time of filing the bill.' McMahon v. McMahon, 170 Ala. 338, 54 So. 165; Brown v. Brown, 219 Ala. 104, 121 So. 386; Howell v. Howell, 211 Ala. 415, 100 So. 635. bill is not sufficient in this respect, and was subject to the demurrer interposed. It was addressed to several other aspects, ......
-
Able v. State, 6 Div. 511
...Wis. 466, 261 N.W. 224; State ex rel. Attorney General v. Savage, 89 Ala. 1, 7 So. 7, 183, 7 L.R.A. 426. In the case of Howell v. Howell, 211 Ala. 415, 100 So. 635, the Supreme Court reviewed the import of the provision 'addicted after marriage to habitual drunkenness' as it appears in our ......
-
Armstrong v. Armstrong
...neighbors of this couple and those with whom defendant worked, we are persuaded the following observations of this court in Howell v. Howell, supra, are applicable: "He occasionally, not frequently, drank to excess; it was not habitual with him; sobriety was the rule, and occasional drinkin......
-
Prince v. State, 8 Div. 113
...or incapable of managing himself or herself and his or her affairs.' 9 Halsbury's Laws of England, 241. In the case of Howell v. Howell, 211 Ala. 415, 100 So. 635, our Supreme Court had occasion to interpret and define the provision: For becoming 'addicted after marriage to habitual drunken......