Burdette v. Burdette

15 So. 2d 727, 245 Ala. 26, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 52
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 26, 1943
Docket5 Div. 389.
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 15 So. 2d 727 (Burdette v. Burdette) 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
Burdette v. Burdette, 15 So. 2d 727, 245 Ala. 26, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 52 (Ala. 1943).

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

Bill by the wife against the husband for divorce alleging — -to state the grounds in the language of the allegation in the bill, “Respondent on, to-wit: June 29, 1942, committed actual violence on the person of the Complainant attended with danger to life and health, and from his conduct there is reasonable apprehension of such violence if the Complainant continued to live with him.”

The bill was not answered, but a decree pro confesso was taken, and on submission for final decree on the pleadings, decree pro confesso and depositions taken before the register, the court entered a decree dismissing the bill, without prejudice.

The depositions of the witnesses were, more or less, in stereotype form, stating, not the facts and circumstances attending the commission of violence on the complainant, but conclusions such as, “that such violence was attended with danger to my life and health and from his conduct there was reasonable apprehension of such violence if I continued to live with him.” This was a mere conclusion which it was the province of the court to draw and was wholly insufficient to support the allegations of the bill. Wakefield v. Wakefield, 217 Ala. 517, 116 So. 685;

Notwithstanding the decree pro confesso, and § 39, Tit. 34, Code 1940, the burden was on the complainant to prove the grounds of divorce by competent legal evidence. The decree could not be supported by the mere confession of the defendant. Code 1940, Tit. 34, § 26.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and THOMAS and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Hamby v. Hamby
575 So. 2d 580 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Clark v. Clark
384 So. 2d 1120 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1980)
Maddox v. Maddox
201 So. 2d 47 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1967)
Watson v. Watson
178 So. 2d 819 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1965)
Barnett v. Barnett
97 So. 2d 809 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
Hendrix v. Hendrix
34 So. 2d 214 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Pittman v. Pittman
19 So. 2d 723 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 So. 2d 727, 245 Ala. 26, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burdette-v-burdette-ala-1943.