Caldwell v. Caldwell

Supreme Court of Alabama

Caldwell v. Caldwell

76 So. 928, 200 Ala. 570, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 541

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1917

Docket8 Div. 19.

StatusPublished

This text of 76 So. 928 (Caldwell v. Caldwell) 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

Caldwell v. Caldwell, 76 So. 928, 200 Ala. 570, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 541 (Ala. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

MAYFIELD, J.

This is the fifth appeal in this ease. See 72 South. 621, 1 183 Ala. 590, 62 South. 951, 173 Ala. 216, 55 South. 515, 157 Ala. 119, 47 South. 268, for reports of former appeals. There is no new question of law involved on this appeal. While we are urged by counsel to review the questions of law on this.appeal because we fell into error in the decisions of the other appeals, we are not inclined to recede from the rulings on the other appeals.

The chancellor and the register evidently attempted ,to follow up the ease according to the law as heretofore declared by this court, and to the instructions as to stating the accounts. While we concede that it is a troublesome case, involving difficult and complex questions as to both the law and the facts, we are not prepared to say that either the chancellor or the register erred as to findings of facts, or that there is any error for which the appellants should obtain a reversal of the decree. It is true, as pointed out by learned counsel, that there is evidence in the record which would support a different finding — some more favorable to appellants— but there is other evidence not so favorable to them. But, on the whole, we are persuaded that the disputed facts were found correctly, and that the decree was entered correctly upon tñe facts as found.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

1

197 Ala. 210.

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

MAYFIELD, J.

This is the fifth appeal in this ease. See 72 South. 621, 1 183 Ala. 590, 62 South. 951, 173 Ala. 216, 55 South. 515, 157 Ala. 119, 47 South. 268, for reports of former appeals. There is no new question of law involved on this appeal. While we are urged by counsel to review the questions of law on this.appeal because we fell into error in the decisions of the other appeals, we are not inclined to recede from the rulings on the other appeals.

The chancellor and the register evidently attempted ,to follow up the ease according to the law as heretofore declared by this court, and to the instructions as to stating the accounts. While we concede that it is a troublesome case, involving difficult and complex questions as to both the law and the facts, we are not prepared to say that either the chancellor or the register erred as to findings of facts, or that there is any error for which the appellants should obtain a reversal of the decree. It is true, as pointed out by learned counsel, that there is evidence in the record which would support a different finding — some more favorable to appellants— but there is other evidence not so favorable to them. But, on the whole, we are persuaded that the disputed facts were found correctly, and that the decree was entered correctly upon tñe facts as found.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

1

197 Ala. 210.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 So. 928, 200 Ala. 570, 1917 Ala. LEXIS 541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caldwell-v-caldwell-ala-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack