Brindley v. Brindley

115 Ala. 474
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 115 Ala. 474 (Brindley v. Brindley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brindley v. Brindley, 115 Ala. 474 (Ala. 1896).

Opinion

COLEMAN, J.

The appellee, Annie Brindley, filed the present bill against her husband, the purpose of which was not to obtain a divorce, but maintenance. After the filing of the bill, and the respondent had been brought into court, she petitioned the court for temporary alimony and a reasonable allowance for counsel fees. The court ordered the register to hold a reference, and report wliat would be a reasonable amount pendente lite. The respondent was duly notified of the time and place of executing the reference, and appeared. The register reported that six dollars per month for maintenance, and twenty-five dollars for counsel fees, would be reasonable. This report was confirmed by the court. The present appeal is prosecuted from the decretal order of the court to the register, from the report of the register and the decree of confirmation.

That the wife is entitled to the relief prayed for in the bill, and to temporary alimony and reasonable counsel fees pendente lite, upon proper averments and proof, is not an open question in this court.—Glover v. Glover, 16 Ala. 440; Murray v. Murray, 84 Ala. 363 ; Rast v. Rast, 113 Ala. 319 ; McFarland v. McFarland, 64 Miss. 449; Johnson v. Johnson, 125 Ill. 510.

The bill charges abandonment by the husband, “and at a time when she was sick and in a helpless condition, took her in his buggy to her father’s house and left her, and has not been to see her, or paid any attention to her since.” The bill further charges, that respondent “has accused her of adultery, and made base and vile charges against her, without the shadow of a foundation for them, ’ ’ and has attempted to induce witnesses to testify that she had been guilty of such misconduct.

We have no hestitation in declaring that the averments of the bill are sufficient, and if sustained by the evidence, entitle her to relief.

We have examined the evidence taken before the register, and are reasonably satisfied that the allowance made is not excessive. The amount allowed by the court upon the report of the register is merely interlocutory, and subject to the further orders of the court. The amount may be increased or diminised during the further progress of the caxise, as the necessities of the parties and justice may demand.

We find no error in the record.

Affirmed,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lyall v. Lyall
35 So. 2d 550 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Ex Parte Bragg
2 So. 2d 393 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1941)
Ex Parte Williams
135 So. 172 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1931)
Ex Parte Jackson
103 So. 558 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1925)
Johnson v. Johnson
67 So. 400 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Jones v. Jones
57 So. 376 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1912)
Brady v. Brady
39 So. 237 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1905)
Brindley v. Brindley
121 Ala. 429 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 Ala. 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brindley-v-brindley-ala-1896.