Williams v. Williams
| Decision Date | 07 March 1940 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 598. |
| Citation | 194 So. 507,239 Ala. 162 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; A. A. Griffith, Judge.
Suit for divorce and alimony by Myrtle Williams against R. V Williams. From a decree for complainant, respondent appeals.
Affirmed.
St John & St. John, of Cullman, for appellant.
H. H Kinney, of Cullman, for appellee.
The appeal is from a decree of divorce with alimony in favor of the wife on the ground of cruelty.
Cruelty defined by statute, is shown, when, from the conduct of the husband, there is reasonable apprehension of actual violence to the person of the wife, attended with danger to her life or health. Code, § 7409.
This marriage was between persons in mature life, both of whom had been divorced from former mates, the husband on the ground of cruelty, the wife by suit in her name.
Both had children by former marriages: A small boy of the husband lived with them. Separation ensued at the end of one year. The wife was well advanced in pregnancy at the time. This bill followed speedily.
For several months before separation family disputes about inconsequential matters arose. Neither party was blameless; both constributed to the pain and unhappiness which family quarrels entail. This situation evidences a drifting apart; the absence of the marital affection which expresses itself in mutual efforts to contribute to the happiness and lighten the burdens of each other.
The joys of making a home for each other, the unity of purpose which makes them one, are absent from the beginning, or speedily disappear under conditions here disclosed.
The husband had rented a portion of the dwelling to another family, consisting of husband, wife, and baby seventeen months old.
The separation grew immediately out of a difference between the two women, ostensibly relating to their respective rights in the use of the porch and the tenant's use of the frigidaire by invitation of the husband. A quarrel between the women ensued; the wife of the tenant appealed to the landlord; his wife conceived he was unjustly siding with the other woman. Bitter words followed. The husband covered his wife's mouth with his hand to hush her up; threatened to get a switch and give her a whipping; took her by the arm to stay her from calling the law. The separation followed the next day.
We think the weight of the evidence discloses respondent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Taylor
...246 Ala. 165, 19 So.2d 521; Puckett v. Puckett, 240 Ala. 607, 200 So. 420; Wallis v. Wallis, 240 Ala. 439, 199 So. 844; Williams v. Williams, 239 Ala. 162, 194 So. 507; Murray v. Murray, 238 Ala. 158, 189 So. 877, Windham v. Windham, 234 Ala. 309, 174 So. 500; Ex parte Allan, 220 Ala. 482, ......
-
Hodson v. Hodson
...the decree of the court granting the divorce on the ground of cruelty. McMahon v. McMahon, 272 Ala. 653, 133 So.2d 374; Williams v. Williams, 239 Ala. 162, 194 So. 507. Appellant insists that the court erred in awarding $200 as attorney's fee when there was no proof that the fee was reasona......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...224 Ala. 103, 139 So. 335; Brown v. Brown, 219 Ala. 104, 121 So. 386; Tidmore v. Tidmore, 245 Ala. 149, 16 So.2d 319; Williams v. Williams, 239 Ala. 162, 194 So. 507. distinction must be noted between the sufficiency of the bill to state a cause of action when there is no demurrer, as in St......
-
Weems v. Weems
...actual physical violence has been committed. Carr v. Carr, 171 Ala. 600, 55 So. 96; Goodrich v. Goodrich, 44 Ala. 670; Williams v. Williams, 239 Ala. 162, 194 So. 507; Bailey v. Bailey, 237 Ala. 525, 187 So. 453; Pitchford v. Pitchford, 222 Ala. 612, 133 So. It is true that the appellant co......