Ingram v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 30 June 1905 |
| Citation | 143 Ala. 129,42 So. 24 |
| Parties | INGRAM ET AL. v. INGRAM. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; W. H. Simpson, Chancellor.
"To be officially reported."
Suit by M. J. Ingram against M. W. Ingram and others. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.
W. A Young, for appellants.
NeSmith & NeSmith, for appellee.
The bill in this case was filed by Mary J. Ingram against her husband, M. W. Ingram, and his father and mother, and prayed for a divorce, alimony, custody of their two children, and the subjection of certain lands to her claim, which it is alleged were conveyed by her said husband, on the eve of marriage, in fraud of her marital rights. The answer, besides a general denial, sets up the fact that said M. W. Ingram who resides in Texas, had, before the filing of the bill obtained in the district court of Henderson county, Tex., a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony hitherto existing between complainant and the defendant M. W. Ingram. The various amendments, demurrers, motion to dismiss, and answers, raise the question as to the validity and effect of said decree in Texas, and as to the right of the complainant to maintain a bill for alimony after the rendition of said decree. It was claimed by the defendant that said decree was rendered, after jurisdiction of complainant had been obtained by an acknowledgment of service signed by her and filed in said court. The complainant insists that said paper purporting to be her acknowledgment, was a forgery, and that she never had any notice of said proceeding, until long after the rendition of the decree.
A decree of divorce in one state may be impeached collateraly in the courts of another state, by proof that the court granting the divorce had no jurisdiction, nothwithstanding the recitals in the decree showing jurisdiction. German Savings Society v. Dormitzer, 192 U.S. 125, 24 S.Ct 221, 48 L.Ed. 373; Kingsbury v. Yniestra, Adm'r, 59 Ala. 320. There is no pretense that any explanation was made to her as to what the paper was, even by those who claimed she signed it, her name was misspelled, and while there is some conflict in the testimony, yet from a careful examination of the depositions, we are satisfied that either she did not sign the service at all, or, if she did sign the paper, she was deceived so that she did not understand its purport. Consequently, the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith, 7 Div. 835.
... ... this is done on the instant pleading, and by argument of ... appellee's counsel. Ex parte Edwards, 183 Ala. 659, 62 ... So. 775; Ingram v. Ingram, 143 Ala. 129, 42 So. 24, ... 111 Am.St.Rep. 31. The general authorities on the subject are ... noted in 99 A.L.R. 1312, 1317; 17 ... ...
-
Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Lewis, Civ. A. No. 68-55.
...void for want of jurisdiction is generally subject to collateral attack. 24 Am.Jur.2d Divorce and Separation § 478 at 602; Ingram v. Ingram, 143 Ala. 129, 42 So. 24. The full faith and credit clause (Sec. 1, Art. 4) of the Constitution does not apply to a divorce obtained in a foreign count......
-
Wells v. Wells
... ... void. Bell v. Bell, supra; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 ... Wall. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897; Ingram v. Ingram, 143 Ala ... 129, 42 So. 24, 111 Am.St.Rep. 31; 19 Corpus Juris 376; ... Haas-Phillips Produce Co. v. Lee & Edwards, 205 Ala ... 137, ... ...
-
Reed v. State
...state in which neither party is domiciled." See also Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14, 23 S.Ct. 237, 47 L.Ed. 366; Ingram v. Ingram. 143 Ala. 129, 42 So. 24, 111 Am. St.Rep. 31; Field v. Field, 215 Ill. 496, 74 N.E. We now come to a discussion of the complaints relating to the court's charge......