Halbrooks v. Halbrooks

Supreme Court of Alabama

Halbrooks v. Halbrooks

42 So. 2d 352, 252 Ala. 667, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 530

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 23, 1949

Docket8 Div. 463.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 So. 2d 352 (Halbrooks v. Halbrooks) 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

Halbrooks v. Halbrooks, 42 So. 2d 352, 252 Ala. 667, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 530 (Ala. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

John Astor Halbrooks, who brings this appeal, filed suit for divorce against his *668 wife, Beatrice Halbrooks, on the ground of voluntary abandonment and later amended the complaint by alleging adultery. On a hearing on evidence taken partly by deposition and partly ore tenus in open court, a final decree was rendered denying him relief but granting the defendant’s prayer, made by way of cross-bill, for the payment of a stipulated monthly sum for the support and maintenance of their minor child.

The appeal does not seem to challenge the award for the child, nor do any assignments assert error in the dismissal of Halbrooks’ bill and denying relief thereunder. There is argument in brief which does challenge the decree in the last regard mentioned, but no' assignment of error is made challenging it, and the argument can well be disregarded under the rule. Supreme Court Rule 1, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639.

In fact, the assignments of error are so general, uncertain, and argumentative that it is doubtful in our minds whether, under the rule, they merit treatment, but we will give attention to them anyway, since but little discussion in response is necessary.

There was no error in permitting the two persons, alleged in the amended bill to have committed acts of adultery with the defendant, to testify in denial of the charge. It was, of course, quite proper that the defendant introduce these witnesses to give such testimony in disproof of that allegation.

Nor was there error because the defendant did not appear in open court and deny the accusation against her. Her answer denying this allegation filed before final submission and decree was sufficient to this end and the evidence adduced in support thereof was likewise sufficient to justify the decree dismissing the bill.

So considered, no error to reverse is made to appear.

Affirmed.

BROWN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

John Astor Halbrooks, who brings this appeal, filed suit for divorce against his *668 wife, Beatrice Halbrooks, on the ground of voluntary abandonment and later amended the complaint by alleging adultery. On a hearing on evidence taken partly by deposition and partly ore tenus in open court, a final decree was rendered denying him relief but granting the defendant’s prayer, made by way of cross-bill, for the payment of a stipulated monthly sum for the support and maintenance of their minor child.

The appeal does not seem to challenge the award for the child, nor do any assignments assert error in the dismissal of Halbrooks’ bill and denying relief thereunder. There is argument in brief which does challenge the decree in the last regard mentioned, but no' assignment of error is made challenging it, and the argument can well be disregarded under the rule. Supreme Court Rule 1, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Halle v. Brooks, 209 Ala. 486, 96 So. 341; Wetzel v. Hobbs, 249 Ala. 434, 31 So.2d 639.

In fact, the assignments of error are so general, uncertain, and argumentative that it is doubtful in our minds whether, under the rule, they merit treatment, but we will give attention to them anyway, since but little discussion in response is necessary.

There was no error in permitting the two persons, alleged in the amended bill to have committed acts of adultery with the defendant, to testify in denial of the charge. It was, of course, quite proper that the defendant introduce these witnesses to give such testimony in disproof of that allegation.

Nor was there error because the defendant did not appear in open court and deny the accusation against her. Her answer denying this allegation filed before final submission and decree was sufficient to this end and the evidence adduced in support thereof was likewise sufficient to justify the decree dismissing the bill.

So considered, no error to reverse is made to appear.

Affirmed.

BROWN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 So. 2d 352, 252 Ala. 667, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halbrooks-v-halbrooks-ala-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack