Shelton v. Shelton, 4 Div. 389.
Decision Date | 13 June 1946 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 389. |
Citation | 248 Ala. 48,26 So.2d 553 |
Parties | SHELTON v. SHELTON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J Hubert Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
Martin & Jackson, of Dothan, for appellee.
This cause was submitted on motion to dismiss the appeal and on the merits.
On April 13, 1945, appellee, Vivian R. Shelton, filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of Houston County, sitting in equity, against the appellant, William W. Shelton. The purpose of the bill was to have that court set aside and declare null and void a divorce decree theretofore rendered by that court on September 19, 1944, in a cause wherein the appellant in this case, William W. Shelton, was complainant and the appellee here, Vivian R. Shelton, was respondent.
On June 12, 1945, appellant, William W. Shelton, filed a motion in the equity court of Houston County to stay the proceedings on the ground that he was a member of the United States Army and that by reason of such service his ability to defend the action was materially affected.
The applicable section of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 is as follows: October 17, 1940, c. 888, § 201, 54 Stat. 1181 Title 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 521.
It appears that on August 18, 1945, a decree was rendered in the equity court of Houston County in favor of the appellee Vivian R. Shelton, and against appellant, William W. Shelton, whereby appellant was required to pay appellee the sum of $40.00 per month as alimony pendente lite for such reasonable length of time as was necessary for appellee, the said Vivian R. Shelton, to prosecute the instant case to final decree, subject to the future orders of the court.
On the same day, that is, August 18, 1945, the equity court of Houston County acted on appellant's motion to stay the proceedings filed against him by appellee and decreed that such proceedings be stayed so long as the appellant pays to appellee the sum of $40 per month as alimony pendente lite, as had been theretofore decreed by the court, as above set out.
It was from the decree staying the proceedings conditionally that the appeal was taken to this court, it being appellant's contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. Cooke
...it clearly impossible for the appellate court to grant effectual relief. Williams v. Wert, 259 Ala. 557, 67 So.2d 830; Shelton v. Shelton, 248 Ala. 48, 26 So.2d 553; Gaines v. Malone, 242 Ala. 595, 7 So.2d 263; Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. 749. We have said that when it is appare......
-
Grant v. City of Mobile
...appeal will be dismissed. State v. Burroughs, 285 Ala. 177, 230 So.2d 235; McDonald v. Lyle, 270 Ala. 715, 121 So.2d 885; Shelton v. Shelton, 248 Ala. 48, 26 So.2d 553; Gaines v. Malone, 242 Ala. 595, 7 So.2d 263; Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. 749. The rule was also stated thus in......
-
McDonald v. Lyle
...court to grant effectual relief, the appeal will be dismissed. State ex rel. Lloyd v. Morris, 262 Ala. 432, 79 So.2d 431; Shelton v. Shelton, 248 Ala. 48, 26 So.2d 553; Gaines v. Malone, 242 Ala. 595, 7 So.2d 263; Coleman v. Mange, 238 Ala. 141, 189 So. 749; 5 C.J.S. Appeal & Error § Here, ......
-
State ex rel. City of Prichard v. Jansen
...will be dismissed. McDonald v. Lyle, Ala., 121 So.2d 885; State ex rel. Lloyd v. Morris, 262 Ala. 432, 79 So.2d 431; Shelton v. Shelton, 248 Ala. 48, 26 So.2d 553. Here, the petition for mandamus was concerned with the order for the holding or with the postponing of the election, which has ......