West v. West
Decision Date | 31 October 1968 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 818 |
Citation | 283 Ala. 211,215 So.2d 287 |
Parties | Zeddie Lee WEST v. William F. WEST, Jr. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Roy D. McCord, Gadsden, for appellant.
Burns, Carr & Shumaker, Gadsden, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree rendered in a divorce case by the Circuit Court of Etowah County, in Equity, on February 23, 1968.
The decree from which the appeal was taken reads as hereinafter set out, except for the words which we have italicized. The italicized words were added by the trial court ex mero motu on March 22, 1968.
'FINAL DECREE
'This cause, coming on to be heard on the bill of complaint, the answer thereto, the cross bill of complaint and the answer thereto, and both of the parties being present in open court, and upon the taking of testimony of the same, ore tenus the court is of the opinion that the cross plaintiff is entitled to an absolute divorce from the cross defendant and that the cross defendant is entitled to the care, custody and control of the minor children of the parties, along with child support of $40.00 per week and the right to the possession and use of the residence of the parties, and upon a careful consideration thereof, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as follows:
'Lots Numbers 16, 17, 18 and 19 in Block Number 37 in Gadsden Realty Company's South Gadsden Addition, according to the map or plat thereof, as the same appears of record in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Etowah County, Alabama, in Plat Book 'B', pages 314 and 315, and lying and being in Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama; together with all improvements thereon.
'This the 23 day of Feb. 1968.
Judge'
There are four assignments of error, which read as follows:
'1. The trial court erred in entering its final decree of divorce in favor of the Appellee, William F. West, Jr., in this cause, said Appellee being the Cross-Plaintiff in the Circuit Court. (Tr. page 10)
Since there is no transcript of the evidence before us, the first three assignments of error are inefficacious.--Smith v. State, 280 Ala. 241, 192 So.2d 443, and cases cited; Gardner v. Gardner, 244 Ala. 107, 11 So.2d 852.
The fourth assignment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Machen v. Wilder
... ... fronting 15 feet on Lookout Street in Gadsden, running back approximately 195 feet and widening to a width of 30 feet on the back, being the west portion of Lot 2 in Block 1 of the recorded A. L. Small Addition to Alabama City ... Appellant, Joe S. Machen, filed an answer and ... ...
-
Pugh v. Ford
...the propriety of the trial court's conclusions thereon. (citations ommitted)' (246 Ala. at 486, 21 So.2d at 322) See also West v. West, 283 Ala. 211, 215 So.2d 287; Melton v. Melton, 288 Ala. 452, 261 So.2d 887. This principle of law was reaffirmed as recently as February 14, 1974, by the A......