Lunsford v. Lunsford, 4 Div. 884

Citation232 Ala. 368,168 So. 188
Decision Date14 May 1936
Docket Number4 Div. 884
PartiesLUNSFORD v. LUNSFORD.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J.S. Williams, Judge.

Bill for divorce by J.M. Lunsford against Annie Bell Lunsford, and cross-bill by respondent. From a decree granting divorce and fixing alimony, respondent appeals.

Affirmed.

McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for appellant.

Chauncey Sparks, of Eufaula, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a suit for divorce with a cross-bill for alimony. The complainant and respondent married in 1921, when he was about fifty-three and she was nineteen years of age. He was a bachelor, and was then and continued to be a prosperous farmer. Her father was a tenant on halves with complainant at the time, and the family lived in complainant's house. He had reared a niece and nephew, but they had married and moved off his place. His niece had a son named Alpheus Sanders, who was about five years old when the complainant and respondent married.

The evidence shows, we think, that they lived together as well as people so situated generally do. Each appeared to be kind and considerate of the other. He bought a radio and an automobile, and she drove it, but he did not, and she went when and where she wished, always willing to take him. She did the cooking and ordinary housework.

Mrs Sanders, his niece, lived not far away, and she and respondent were good friends and frequently visited. Mrs Sanders continued to be solicitous of and interested in complainant, and her son was very much at home there. They both enjoyed the best of character, and no children came.

Respondent testified that in 1924 and 1932 she had a miscarriage, but there was no corroboration of this evidence. On the other hand, complainant testified he knew nothing of it, and the washerwoman testified to facts which tended to show it did not occur. By 1933 Alpheus was about seventeen, and complainant contracted serious organic heart and liver trouble. His mother noticed that he and respondent, then about thirty-one, seemed to be too fond of each other, as manifested in many small attentions, and finally were seen hugging and kissing. She remonstrated with her son, and he told her nothing was wrong. But later, on December 6, 1933, she saw them, she says, under very suspicious circumstances which were not communicated, however, to complainant at the time. On November 9, 1933, complainant came to be much worse, including high blood pressure, with angina pectoris. On November 12th, he was advised to, and did go to bed and remained there for a few weeks, and until he went to the hospital in Eufaula. Alpheus was often there. Complainant began to take notice of their suspicious conduct but respondent was always kind to him. He was then about sixty-five years of age, but she says he was always very passionate, and indulged with her practically every night. On December 17, 1933, he went to Dr. Salter's hospital in Eufaula for treatment, and remained there until January 3, 1934. Alpheus and his mother carried respondent to the hospital every afternoon, and she stayed with complainant every night in the hospital, and they came and carried her home the next morning. His condition improved, and he went home on January 3, 1934, and she said he had intercourse with her that night, and continued to do so as before.

Respondent was delivered of a child the following September 13th. The doctor said it was fully matured. If so, according to the course of nature it should have been conceived about December 13th, or a few days earlier or later. Franks v. State, 26 Ala.App. 430, 161 So. 549. Complainant says that he did not have intercourse with her from the time he was taken sick on November 9th, when he first consulted a doctor, until March 15, 1934. Their testimony from that time on is directly in conflict. When pregnancy began to be manifest, she says he at first seemed to be satisfied, but later became disturbed, in so far as it would affect the descent of his property. That as time passed, he became more disturbed and irritated, but continued his sexual indulgence; that Mrs. Sanders was always cold and seemed to be resentful that respondent had married her uncle, who was her foster parent.

Complainant claims that he did not know for a time that his wife was pregnant, and she claimed it was a tumor, but would not see a doctor. He finally induced her to go to see Dr. Salter one day when she went to Eufaula for her mother and sister, and brought them back to his house. She told him the doctor said she was pregnant and would be delivered in about four weeks, but was confined in less than that time. (This was complainant's evidence.) He then told her it was not his, and that she should be willing to face Alpheus and hear what he had to say. She refused. But he sent for Alpheus, and he accused Alpheus in the presence of his wife's mother and sister, but she would not be present. Since she was not present, what Alpheus said was not offered. She steadfastly denied that Alpheus was responsible, until complainant says she admitted it to him a few days later.

He then planned to cause a separation, and in the meantime to provide for her confinement. She says he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Morgan v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 11, 2014
    ...party in a divorce suit must be corroborated.’ Watson v. Watson, 278 Ala. 425, 428, 178 So.2d 819, 821 (1965) (citing Lunsford v. Lunsford, 232 Ala. 368, 168 So. 188 (1936) ). Furthermore, ‘ "the mere admission or confession of adultery on the part of the defendant, without any substantive ......
  • Morgan v. Morgan
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • April 18, 2014
    ...in a divorce suit must be corroborated.' Watson v. Watson, 278 Ala. 425, 428, 178 So. 2d 819, 821 (1965) (citing Lunsford v. Lunsford, 232 Ala. 368, 168 So. 188 (1936)). Furthermore, '"the mere admission or confession of adultery on the part of the defendant, without any substantive evidenc......
  • Russell v. Russell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 24, 1960
    ...statute: 'Extra judicial confessions in a litigated case are now admissible, but must be corroborated by other proof. Lunsford v. Lunsford, 232 Ala. 368, 168 So. 188.' The evidence of Russell's purported admission was We come now to the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support......
  • Mueller v. Mueller
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1955
    ...74 App.D.C. 394, 124 F.2d 233, 234; Buerfening v. Buerfening, 23 Minn. 563, 564; Graves v. Graves, 108 Mass. 314, 318; Lunsford v. Lunsford, 232 Ala. 368, 168 So. 188, 190; Ashcroft v. Ashcroft (1902) Prob. 270, 277, C.A; Edwards v. Edwards (1894) Prob. 33, 38; see also, Alldredge v. Alldre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT