Ratcliff v. Ratcliff

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GARDNER, J.
• Citation: Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 209 Ala. 377, 96 So. 422 (Ala. 1923)
• Decision Date: 03 May 1923
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 501.
• Parties: RATCLIFF v. RATCLIFF.

96 So. 422

209 Ala. 377

RATCLIFF v. RATCLIFF.

8 Div. 501.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 3, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Bill of Josie Ratcliff against T. R. Ratcliff. Decree for complainant, and respondent appeals. Affirmed.

Sayre J., dissenting.

H. G Bailey, of Boaz, for appellant.

Street & Bradford, of Guntersville, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Suit by the wife against the husband, seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, and as incidental thereto alimony, the custody of the minor children, and the cancellation of a certain contract in writing, previously entered into between the parties, concerning the amount agreed to be paid by the husband to the wife upon a former separation.

The respondent answered the bill, denying the allegation of cruelty, and alleged that complainant to the original bill had voluntarily abandoned him, and that she was not the proper person to have the care and custody of the minor children. It was also averred in the answer that the written agreement sought to be canceled in the original bill was executed by respondent under circumstances of duress, and it was prayed that the answer be considered as a cross-bill, and that cross-complainant be granted a divorce on the ground of voluntary abandonment, the custody of the minor children, and the cancellation of the written contract referred to in the original bill. Complainant filed a motion to strike the cross-bill, demurred thereto, and also answered the same.

Much testimony was taken by the respective parties in support of the issues of fact presented by the pleading, and upon submission of the cause for final decree upon pleadings and proof, the chancellor was of the opinion that complainant to the original bill was entitled to the relief she sought. She was therefore by a decree granted a divorce, the custody of the minor children, and a cancellation of the written contract, and a reference was ordered to ascertain a proper sum to be paid her as alimony. From this decree, respondent has prosecuted this appeal.

The evidence presented by this record has been most carefully examined. A discussion of it would serve no useful purpose for, as said by this court in Pruitt v. Pruitt, 205 Ala. 484, 88 So. 451, it would merely place in bold outline and in recorded form the details of this domestic unhappiness. Suffice it to say we find ourselves in accord with the conclusions of the chancellor, to the effect that complainant by her proof has sufficiently met the burden of proof resting upon her, and we are therefore of the opinion the court below correctly so decreed.

Upon the question of the motion to strike and demurrer to the cross-bill the chancellor rendered no decree, and therefore as to the sufficiency of the cross-bill no question is presented for review. The answer was filed to the cross-bill together with the demurrer, and the...