Lawrence v. Lawrence

• Citation: 37 So. 379,141 Ala. 356
• Parties: LAWRENCE v. LAWRENCE.
• Decision Date: 21 July 1904
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

37 So. 379

141 Ala. 356

LAWRENCE v. LAWRENCE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 21, 1904

Appeal from Chancery Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Chancellor.

Bill for divorce and alimony by Mrs. D. E. Lawrence against D. N Lawrence. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complainant averred in her bill that she and the respondent were duly and regularly married on September 17, 1891, and that they had lived together as man and wife since their marriage; that her husband's business was that of a traveling man, which took him from his home a great deal, and that his visits had become less and less frequent. The bill then continued, in its fourth paragraph, as follows:

"(4) Oratrix further alleges that she has only recently come into possession of knowledge of the unfaithfulness of the respondent to his marital vows to her, and has learned that respondent has been and is now guilty of acts of illicit intercourse, or adulterous acts, with one Mamie Vann; such being the name by which she goes. Oratrix alleges that respondent practically resides with said Mamie Vann, and continues such illicit intercourse with her; that oratrix has only recently found out that such were the facts, and since such information has come into her possession, she has declined to treat him as her husband, or live with him as such, and has not in any other manner or form condoned or forgiven him for such offense and conduct."

In the fifth paragraph of the bill the plaintiff avers that there had been born to her husband and herself a little girl, who was, at the time of the filing of the bill 10 years of age. The bill then continued, in its sixth paragraph, as follows:

"(6) Oratrix further alleges that respondent is engaged in a profitable occupation, by which he makes ample means for the support of oratrix, but furnishes practically nothing therefor; that respondent is well able to answer a decree of this court providing for alimony temporary and pendente lite, and for her solicitor's fee; and that he will not do so unless compelled so to do by this court."

During the pendency of the suit, and upon the petition of the complainant, the chancellor ordered a reference before the register to ascertain and report what would be a proper alimony to be allowed the complainant pendente lite, and what would be a reasonable solicitor's fee for the prosecution of the suit. This reference was held, the report of the register was made, and the respondent filed exceptions to this report. Upon the submission of the case on the exceptions filed to the report of the register, the chancellor overruled the exceptions and confirmed the decree. After the reference was held before the register, the respondent filed a demurrer to the bill of complaint, the grounds of which are sufficiently shown in the opinion. Upon the submission of the case of this demurrer, the chancellor rendered a decree overruling said demurrer, and subsequently rendered a decree allowing temporary and permanent alimony to the complainant pending the suit, and decreeing that the respondent pay the complainant's solicitor's fee, as fixed in the report of the register. The respondent appeals and assigns as error the rendition of the decree overruling the demurrers of the respondent, and by the fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of demurrer, assigned the rendition of the decree allowing the complainant alimony and solicitor's fee. In this court there was a motion made by the appellee to strike the...