Wray v. Wray

33 Ala. 187
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 33 Ala. 187 (Wray v. Wray) 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
Wray v. Wray, 33 Ala. 187 (Ala. 1858).

Opinion

STONE, J.

In a contest between these parties, determined in this court at the June term, 1851, on an application by Mr. Wray for divorce, this court decided that Mrs. Susan M. Wray was insane at the time the acts were [190]*190committed, for which the divorce was sought.—See Wray v. Wray, 19 Ala. 522. The report of that ease was in evidence in this case, as shown by the record.

The proof of her mental condition since that time is probably sufficient to show that, at no time since her deflection from the path of propriety, has she been either legally or morally accountable. We need not, however,, decide this question. Insanity being once established, its continuance is presumed until the contrary is proved. Rawdon v. Rawdon, 28 Ala. 565. The contrary is not proved in this case.

It is claimed for appellant, that as he has proposed to provide for Mrs. Wray a support, and has actually made some provision for her, he should not be decreed to do-what he has already done. If he had, up to the time of the trial, made for his insane wife sufficient provision, and this, independent of any coercive measures through the courts of the country, we would consider the legal question presented. The report of the register, however^ which was confirmed by the chancellor—confirmed, too, without any exceptions to the register’s report—proves conclusively that the support offered and supplied by Mr. Wray is greatly inadequate. This renders a decision of the above question unnecessary.

The principles settled in the case of Mims v. Mims, at the present term, are decisive of this, and prove that the chancellor committed no error.

The decree of the chancellor is affirmed.

Ríos, C. J., not sitting.

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

Related

Towles v. Pettus
12 So. 2d 357 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1943)
Kaplan v. Kaplan
176 N.E. 426 (New York Court of Appeals, 1931)
Ex Parte Apperson
115 So. 226 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Sellers v. Sellers
93 So. 824 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Laudo v. Laudo
188 A.D. 699 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Towner v. Towner
64 S.E. 732 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)
Richardson v. Stuesser
103 N.W. 261 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1905)
Pearce v. Pearce
31 So. 85 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1901)
Fishburne & Wife v. Ferguson's Heirs
4 S.E. 575 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1887)
State v. Wilner
40 Wis. 304 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1876)
Smith v. Smith
47 Miss. 211 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1872)
Kinsey v. Kinsey
37 Ala. 393 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Ala. 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wray-v-wray-ala-1858.