Newhouse v. Miles

9 Ala. 460
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided January 15, 1846·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

GOLDTHWAITE, J.

If it is conceded the husband, in the circumstances of this case, is not a proper party complainant, yet the objection taken for the first time, at the hearing, is too late, and will be disregarded if it does not materially affect the propriety of the decree. [Story’s Eq. Pl. 417, § 544; Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Paige, 510; Erwin v. Ferguson, 5 Ala. Rep. 158.] The objection might possibly have been of some weight, if the decree had admitted the husband as a party in interest, so as to have given him the control of the fund; but instead of that, it directs the money, when [462]*462received, to be paid over to the trustee of the wife, to her sole and separate use. A result precisely as it should be, if the husband was altogether omitted, or made a party defendant.

Decree affirmed.

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

Newhouse v. Miles, 9 Ala. 460 (Ala. 1846).

9 Ala. 460 (Newhouse v. Miles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ohio Oil Co. v. Daughetee
88 N.E. 818 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1909)
Lehman, Durr & Co. v. Greenhut
88 Ala. 478 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1889)
Colgin v. Redman
20 Ala. 650 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1852)
Hunley v. Hunley
15 Ala. 91 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1848)