Murray v. Murray, 8 Div. 977.

• Decision Date: 15 June 1939
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 977.
• Citation: 189 So. 877,238 Ala. 158
• Parties: MURRAY v. MURRAY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

189 So. 877

238 Ala. 158

MURRAY v. MURRAY.

8 Div. 977.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 15, 1939

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.

Bill for divorce and alimony by Lilly Murray against W. R. Murray. From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals.

Modified and affirmed in part, and in part reversed, rendered and remanded.

W. L Chenault, of Russellville, and J. E. Delony, Jr., of Tuscumbia, for appellant.

A. H Carmichael, Jr., of Tuscumbia, for appellee.

FOSTER Justice.

This is a suit by the wife for a divorce and alimony. They had been married sixteen years; had no children, and lived an ordinarily contented life. He was at first a farmer, and then a skilled mechanic, at the last working for the Tennessee Valley Authority, earning $110 per month. They lived in a rented house. He paid all the expenses of the living, and provided amply in every respect for their reasonable needs.

There was no trouble whatever until a few months before the separation, when she became suspicious and jealous of a widow living across the street. The evidence does not show any foundation for her suspicion and jealousy. But there are sometimes small suspicious circumstances which more or less justly arouse the ire of a married woman, when the merits of the situation are not as serious as she supposes. They become serious to her, and are as real as though they were true, as she suspects. She is justified in manifesting a reasonable show of resentment, but can extend it too far. Whether she did or not in making an attack upon the one who she thought was to blame may be debatable in some quarters,--not for our decision.

There were evidently some sharp passages between her and her husband on account of it, natural under the circumstances. But they furnish no ground for divorce nor for the use of any violence on the part of the husband. He is never justified in ethics or in law in using violence, except in defense of himself against a physical assault, rarely made by the wife upon him. We in no sense condone it here. He could have appeased her by avoiding any show of conduct which would be objectionable to her. This he could easily have done. Failing in this respect he doubtless is responsible for arousing a resentment in her bordering on to passion, which lead her into violent outbursts of temper, but which did not call for or condone the use by him of any sort of physical punishment.

The ties of wedlock are not lightly assumed, and must not be destroyed by judicial decree, except upon grounds specified by our statutes. Our laws, and all mankind recognize that disputes which at the present seem to the parties to be sufficient to sever the relation should not be so treated by themselves nor by the courts. Many such disputes as severe as are here shown, while causing temporary separation, have not resulted in making it permanent.

These people are both of excellent character, as the evidence...