Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 13 January 1916
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 208
• Citation: 71 So. 415,195 Ala. 641
• Parties: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

71 So. 415

195 Ala. 641

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON.

6 Div. 208

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 13, 1916

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1916

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lamar County; James E. Horten, Jr. Chancellor.

Suit by Minnie Johnson against W.J. Johnson. Decree for plaintiff and order of reference, from which defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Walter Nesmith, of Vernon, for appellant.

Kelley & Young, of Vernon, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Suit by the wife against the husband for alimony alone. The sufficiency of the bill's averments was tested on the former appeal in this cause, Johnson v. Johnson, 67 So. 400. From a decree finding the complainant entitled to relief, and ordering a reference to ascertain what would be a reasonable sum to be paid her as alimony, and what a reasonable sum to be paid as compensation for her solicitors respondent prosecutes this appeal.

The decree directed the register to take into consideration the amount of property owned by respondent, his earning capacity, the amount of his annual income, the circumstances of the parties, and any children the respondent had, dependent upon him for support, as well as to take into consideration the age and health of the complainant, her earning capacity, and what property she might have. The evidence discloses that the complainant left the home of the respondent in June, 1913; the marriage having occurred in 1911. That complainant is without property of any character is without dispute.

The finding of the chancellor that the complainant was entitled to relief discloses his conclusion that the abandonment, by the wife, of the husband, was through the fault of the latter. The evident desire on the part of the respondent that his wife should leave his home, and his confessed unwillingness for her return thereto, in the light of all the testimony in the cause, lends color and support to the theory of the complainant. But we are not disposed to discuss the evidence, for it would serve no good purpose. Suffice it to say, it has been given careful consideration, and we find no fault with the conclusion reached in the court below.

It is insisted that proof fails to show any property owned by respondent, or any income therefrom, and therefore that there can be no basis for a decree of alimony. There is evidence however, justifying a very reasonable inference that respondent has some means. In 1912 he sold some property to his son for $1,300, which sum has been paid; and there is evidence tending to show some other means. A further inquiry into his financial condition will doubtless be made by the register, in the reference which has been ordered. In addition to this,...