Whitworth v. Whitworth
Decision Date | 18 October 1951 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 226 |
Citation | 256 Ala. 296,54 So.2d 575 |
Parties | WHITWORTH v. WHITWORTH. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Curtis, Maddox & Johnson, Jasper, for appellant.
Fite and Fite, Hamilton and Fite & Fite, Jasper, for appellee.
This appeal is from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Marion County, in equity sitting, in the matter of the estate of Billie John Whitworth, deceased, removed from the Probate Court of said county, denying and dismissing the petition of Susie Whitworth, the divorced wife of said decedent, seeking the removal of Marvin J. Whitworth as administrator and the appointment of the petitioner as administratrix of said estate.
The decree entered September 7, 1950, after stating that the court was of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under her petition, recites:
'Upon consideration of the pleadings and of the competent, legal, material and relevant testimony,
The gist of the petition is thus stated:
These allegations were denied by the respondent administrator, thus presenting an issue of fact, the burden of proof of which was on the petitioner. This issue of fact was heard and determined on testimony given ore tenus taken before the court and documentary evidence, resulting in the stated decree, from which the petitioner has appealed.
The background of the proceedings as disclosed by the evidence briefly stated is: The petitioner and the intestate were married in Winston County March 25, 1925 and lived together in a state of wedlock for about twenty years when said domestic relation was interrupted by the voluntary abandonment by the wife of her husband, the decedent, who at that time, as the evidence tends to show, was in failing health, and on January 10, 1947, he filed his bill seeking a divorce.
On April 22, 1947, the wife (petitioner here) filed an answer and cross-bill seeking alimony temporary and permanent and attorney's fees. On May 5, 1947, a decree for temporary alimony and attorney's fees was granted, which was not complied with by the complainant, and he on application of the wife by her solicitor was cited for contempt and required to appear and show cause. On the hearing on June 2, 1947, the court ordered execution to issue for the alimony in arrears and attorney's fees. Execution was issued and levied by the sheriff on the real estate of the complainant in the divorce suit to be had on July 28, 1947.
Thereafter on July 15, 1947, before the date of the sale, the defendant filed a substituted answer, withdrawing the original answer and cross-bill, alleging in the substituted pleading that the parties had agreed on a settlement of their property rights...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piel v. Brown
...conflicting legal requirements. For example, when the issue of a common-law marriage was before the court in Whitworth v. Whitworth, 256 Ala. 296, 54 So.2d 575 (1951), the Court quoted language contained in a Florida case for a pertinent expression of the controlling ' "Neither cohabitation......
-
Beck v. Beck, 6 Div. 573
...into the marriage relationship, permanent and exclusive of all others.--Turner v. Turner, 251 Ala. 295, 37 So.2d 186; Whitworth v. Whitworth, 256 Ala. 296, 54 So.2d 575; Jenkins v. Avery, 257 Ala. 387, 59 So.2d 671; Goodman v. McMillan, 258 Ala. 125, 61 So.2d The man and the woman must be c......
-
Hunter v. Lynn
...a marriage at common law. * * *' The above statement of the law has been approved also in the case recently decided of Whitworth v. Whitworth, Ala.Sup., 54 So.2d 575. In Prince v. Edwards, 175 Ala. 532, 537, 538, 57 So. 714, 715, we quoted with approval the following statement of the law as......
-
Goodman v. McMillan
...or the mutual assumption openly of marital duties and obligations. Jenkins v. Avery, Ala.Sup. 59 So.2d 671; Whitworth v. Whitworth, 256 Ala. 296, 54 So.2d 575; Turner v. Turner, 251 Ala. 295, 37 So.2d 186; Murphy v. Jacobs, 249 Ala. 594, 32 So.2d 306; Campbell v. Rice, 245 Ala. 395, 17 So.2......