Oliver v. Oliver, 4 Div. 271.
Decision Date | 08 April 1943 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 271. |
Citation | 244 Ala. 234,12 So.2d 852 |
Parties | OLIVER v. OLIVER. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
A. L. Patterson, of Phenix City, for appellant.
No attorney marked for appellee.
The bill was by the wife against the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and containing averments in compliance with the statute. Title 34, § 22, Code of 1940; Sams v Sams, 242 Ala. 240, 5 So.2d 774; Ratcliff v Ratcliff, 209 Ala. 377, 96 So. 422.
Complainant offered testimony of herself and two witnesses in substantiation of the cruelty charge, disclosing actual violence by the husband upon the person of the wife attended with danger to her life or health. Authorities supra. It is clear the proof justified the decree of divorce, and this is not questioned by the chancellor in his opinion which accompanies the decree. But complainant was denied relief and her bill dismissed upon the following theory.
In complainant's affidavit as to defendant's nonresidence, it was stated that Robert Oliver, the defendant, "is a non resident of the State of Alabama that she does not know his whereabouts, and he has been absent from the State of Alabama for more than six months before the making of this affidavit, and that he does not have any address or place of residence in the State of Alabama, and that he is a necessary party to said suit, and that she has made a diligent search and inquiry in an effort to locate him but has been unable to do so, and that it is necessary to serve him by publication as required by law in such cases and that he is over 21 years of age, and that he is not a member of the armed forces of the United States, being physically disabled for military service." The affidavit was in compliance with Equity Rule 6, Title 7, page 1044, Code of 1940 Appendix and due publication and posting was had as specified by this rule. In due time decree pro confesso was entered by the register in accordance with the provision of Equity Rule 32, Title 7, page 1076, Code of 1940 Appendix. Relief was denied complainant for the reason, as stated by the chancellor, that there was inconsistency in complainant's statement that defendant was not a member of the armed forces "and in the same breath that she does not know where he is." The opinion concludes: "When she states as a fact that the Respondent does not belong to the Army and then shows that she does not know where he is, she offers unsatisfactory and contradictory statements that do not satisfy this Court that she is entitled to the relief that she seeks."
The court had in mind Section 200 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1180, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 520, which reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCoy v. McCoy
...242 Ala. 353, 6 So.2d 415; Barnes v. Powell, 241 Ala. 409, 3 So.2d 80; Breeding v. Ransom, 220 Ala. 82, 123 So. 899; Oliver v. Oliver, Ala.Sup., 12 So.2d 852. follows from the foregoing that the decree of the circuit court is in error and the cause is reversed. Reversed and remanded. GARDNE......
-
Judd v. Dowdell
...12 So.2d 858 244 Ala. 230 JUDD v. DOWDELL. 5 Div. 373.Supreme Court of AlabamaApril 8, 1943 [12 So.2d 859] ... ...
-
Attorney Grievance Com'n of Maryland v. Kemp
...are unable to appear and defend themselves. See, e.g., United States v. Kaufman, 453 F.2d 306, 308-09 (2d Cir.1971); Oliver v. Oliver, 244 Ala. 234, 12 So.2d 852, 853 (1943).5 The military affidavit, dated August 29, 1990, filed on behalf of George Gray listed his name in paragraph 5.6 On N......
-
Peace v. Bullock, 7 Div. 48
...the filed of speculation and go beyond the plain import of the language of the statute to award benefits thereunder. Oliver v. Oliver, 244 Ala. 234, 12 So.2d 852(2); Royster v. Lederle, 6 Cir., 128 F.2d 197; Bolz Cooperage Corp. v. Beardslee, 211 Mo.App. 109, 245 S.W. 611, note, 130 A.L.R. ......