Ives v. Ives
| Decision Date | 09 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 250. |
| Citation | 247 Ala. 689,26 So.2d 92 |
| Parties | IVES v. IVES. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Johnston McCall & Johnston and John L. Moore, all of Mobile, for appellant.
D R. Coley, Jr., of Mobile, for appellee.
This appeal is from a decree overruling demurrer to a bill in equity which seeks a personal judgment for past due amounts decreed by a court of equity in Florida as alimony on granting a divorce. The decree provided 'that one-half of defendant's salary up to and including $20.00 per week be and the same is hereby fixed and allowed to the plaintiff as alimony to be paid by defendant to the plaintiff only when defendant is gainfully employed, to be paid to plaintiff weekly or semi-weekly, depending upon the manner in which defendant receives his salary.'
This decree in Florida is subject to the comment made in McAlister v. McAlister, 214 Ala. 345, 107 So. 843 and applied in our recent case of New York Life Ins. Co v. Stokes, 25 So.2d 783, in this court.
But as appellant correctly argues if complainant is entitled to a personal judgment in Alabama, on the basis of the installments decreed in Florida, a court of law is ample to render such a judgment, and since relief at law is adequate, equity will not take jurisdiction. The case of McAlister v. McAlister, supra, refers to the rule that an action in debt may be maintained at law on a decree in equity for the payment of money inmmediately upon its rendition, and also for future installments when they become due, and which are not then subject to modification by the court which rendered the decree, and are then complete. If the Florida decree will not support a suit in debt at law in Alabama, there is no equitable principle here pointed out which will justify a suit in equity in Alabama for that purpose.
The decree in question is not for a fixed and definite sum. Its amount is dependent upon whether defendant is gainfully employed and what his salary is and when payable. A decree which does not definitely ascertain and fix the amount to be paid, and time of payment, and which attaches any contingency to its payment will not support an action at law until the court rendering the decree has ascertained the amount and removed the contingency. This was pointed out in our case of McAlister v. McAlister, supra, and in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Stokes, supra.
The case of Green v. Green, 239 Ala. 407, 195 So. 549 was an action at law based on an alimony decree rendered in Florida. But that decree fixed a definite sum to be paid without condition or contingency. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorey v. Dorey, 77-2879
...final to require its enforcement under full faith and credit. 239 Ala. at 409, 195 So. at 550. Similarly, in Ives v. Ives, 247 Ala. 689, 690, 26 So.2d 92, 93 (1946), the court found accrued alimony installments subject to retroactive modification in the granting state not final and therefor......
- Consolidated Coal Co. v. Dill
-
Andrews v. City Nat. Bank of Birmingham
...wife comes into Alabama to recover liquidated alimony payments, her proper action, based upon the decree, lies in debt. Ives v. Ives, 247 Ala. 689, 26 So.2d 92 (1946). In Schooley v. Schooley, 184 Iowa 835, 169 N.W. 56 (1917), the Iowa court wrote to the question of whether alimony results ......
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...there must be a valid subsisting contract between the parties. In a case closely analagous to the facts in this case, Ives v. Ives, 247 Ala. 689, 26 So.2d 92, the court 'A court of equity has no more power under such circumstances than a court of law to render a personal decree for money ex......