Scott v. Scott
Decision Date | 24 March 1927 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 677 |
Citation | 112 So. 218,215 Ala. 684 |
Parties | SCOTT v. SCOTT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 21, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Bill for divorce by John Scott against Winnie Scott, and cross-bill by Winnie Scott. From a decree granting the relief prayed by the original bill and dismissing the cross-bill the defendant appeals. Affirmed in part, and in part reversed and rendered.
O.B Roper, of Gadsden, for appellant.
L.B Rainey, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The original bill was filed January 7, 1926, by the appellee against the appellant, for divorce on the ground of adultery with one Odell Owens, and avers:
"That said illegal relationship existed between the two for a period of several months; that on, to wit, December 6 1925, respondent committed acts of adultery with the said Odell Owens, and on that date complainant and respondent separated, and have not since lived together."
The defendant, appellant here, filed an answer denying the charges made by the bill, and charging the complainant with conduct tending to show reasonable apprehension of violence to her person, attended with danger to her life or health, which was made a cross-bill, and praying for divorce and alimony, temporary and permanent.
On final hearing, the court granted complainant the relief prayed in his bill and dismissed the cross-bill, without recognizing the defendant's right to alimony, and from this decree she appeals.
After careful examination of the case, we are of opinion that the learned trial court erred, and that the decree should be reversed.
While evidence tending to show acts of illicit sexual intercourse between the defendant and Owens subsequent to the filing of the bill was admissible, when offered in connection with or subsequent to the introduction of evidence tending to show adulterous intercourse between the parties during the time covered by the averments of the bill, the right to relief must rest upon proof of the adulterous intercourse charged in the bill. Morrison v. Morrison, 95 Ala. 310, 10 So. 648; Alsabrooks v. State, 52 Ala. 24; Lawson v. State, 20 Ala. 74, 56 Am.Dec. 182.
While the complainant stated in his testimony, that "about December 6, 1925, Odell Owens and my wife committed acts of adultery," his testimony stating the details of the circumstances clearly shows this to be a mere conclusion, and under the statute this conclusion must be disregarded. Code of 1923, § 6565. Aside from this conclusion, there are but three circumstances testified to by complainant upon which he relies to sustain the charge of adultery. One occurred in the summer of 1925, and, to state this in the language of the witness:
These facts are denied by the defendant and Owens, and in addition the complainant admitted that he lived with the defendant after this occurrence.
The other circumstances are thus stated by the complainant:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Grimmett
...by the averments of the bill, the right to relief must rest upon proof of the adulterous intercourse charged in the bill." 215 Ala. at 684, 112 So. at 218 (emphasis added). The cited Morrison, thus indicating that it had been decided on the same procedural basis. Next, a procedural variatio......
-
Ex parte Grimmett
...by the averments of the bill, the right to relief must rest upon proof of the adulterous intercourse charged in the bill." 215 Ala. at 684, 112 So. at 218 (emphasis added). The cited Morrison, thus indicating that it had been decided on the same procedural basis. Next, a procedural variatio......
-
Seay v. State
...transpired before that time. It is limited to that purpose." In this ruling the court is sustained by the authorities. Scott v. Scott, 215 Ala. 684, 112 So. 218; Morrison v. Morrison, 95 Ala. 309, 10 So. Lawson v. State, 20 Ala. 65, 56 Am.Dec. 182; Hill v. State, 137 Ala. 66, 34 So. 406; Al......
-
Gardner v. Gardner
...act of adultery has been committed. Morrison v. Morrison, 95 Ala. 309, 10 So. 648; LeMay v. LeMay, 205 Ala. 694, 89 So. 49; Scott v. Scott, 215 Ala. 684, 112 So. 218; Pitchford v. Pitchford, 222 Ala. 612, 133 So. Brown v. Brown, 229 Ala. 471, 158 So. 311; Windham v. Windham, 234 Ala. 309, 1......