Scott v. Scott
| Decision Date | 11 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 842. |
| Citation | 247 Ala. 598,25 So.2d 673 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | SCOTT v. SCOTT. |
Roy D. McCord, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Edw B. Miller and E. G. Pilcher, both of Gadsden, for appellee.
The bill was filed by a divorced wife (appellee) against appellant, her former husband, and seeks to have entered a decree making provision for the support of their two minor children, the custody of whom had been previously awarded to the mother in the decree of divorcement. The appeal is from a decree overruling the demurrer to the bill.
It is shown by the averments of the bill that the father is able-bodied, a man of means and earning a livelihood, and fully capable of supporting and educating his said children but is contributing nothing toward such support and education. It also appears from the allegations that the mother, though endeavoring to discharge this responsibility is unable and without sufficient means to do so.
It is immaterial that in the decree of divorce no provision was made for the maintenance and education of the minor children of the parties. The equity court has full jurisdiction respecting the duty of the father to support his minor children (Bridges v. Bridges, 227 Ala. 144, 148 So. 816) and it devolved upon him to maintain and educate them in a manner commensurate with his means (Farmer v. Coleman, 231 Ala. 527, 165 So. 778; Chandler v. Whatley, 238 Ala. 206, 189 So. 751).
Any pleading which shows upon its face that the welfare of an infant requires an order with respect to its custody or support is sufficient to invoke the jurisdicition of equity. Woodruff v. Conley, 50 Ala. 304; Pearce v. Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 33 So. 883; Bridges v. Bridges, supra.
It is no objection to the bill, then, that it is an independent suit in the same court where the divorce was granted. Whether so or not is immaterial, since the bill invokes the jurisdiction of the court for the purpose stated. The principle was thus reasserted in the Bridges case, 227 Ala. at page 146, 148 So. at page 816:
The insistence of appellant that the court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDowell v. McDowell
...80, 167 So.2d 163; Stallworth v. Stallworth, 272 Ala. 449, 131 So.2d 867; Butler v. Butler, 254 Ala. 375, 48 So.2d 318; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 25 So.2d 673; Calhoun v. Calhoun, 46 Ala.App. 381, 243 So.2d On motion for rehearing, appellant has cited in particular the case of Sachs v. ......
-
Ex parte Buck, DUFFIE--P
...custody or support is sufficient to invoke this jurisdiction. Tcherneshoff v. Tcherneshoff, 283 Ala. 700, 220 So.2d 888; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 25 So.2d 673. See Lynn v. Wright, 252 Ala. 606, 42 So.2d 490. Here the allegations of the petition to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County......
-
Calhoun v. Calhoun
...such jurisdiction. Stallworth v. Stallworth, 272 Ala. 449, 131 So.2d 867; Butler v. Butler, 254 Ala. 375, 48 So.2d 318; Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 25 So.2d 673. The third ground of the plea in abatement was that the Alabama court had no jurisdiction to render a decree for custody and chi......
-
Stephens v. Stephens
...its face that the welfare of an infant requires an order with repect to its custody or support is sufficient to that end. Scott v. Scott, 247 Ala. 598, 25 So.2d 673; Ex parte Bates, 247 Ala. 391, 24 So.2d Either party, therefore, regardless of any pending proceedings and without waiver of a......