Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

239 Ala. 166

194 So 555

Love v. Love

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided March 7, 1940

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1940-03-07

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““While the bill of complaint in this case could have well been broader and more specific, yet it has been repeatedly held that bills of this character need not be as full or show such fault on the part of the husband as would support a bill for divorce.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Breland v. Breland

Relies on Spafford v. Spafford · Rearden v. Rearden · Jones v. Jones

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-03-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1971

7 state decisions

301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ANDERSON, Chief Justice.

¶1 Bill by married woman against her husband for maintenance and support without divorce.

¶2 While the bill of complaint in this case could have well been broader and more specific, yet it has been repeatedly held that bills of this character need not be as full or show such fault on the part of the husband as would support a bill for divorce. Spafford v. Spafford, 199 Ala. 300, 74 So. 354, L.R.A. 1917D, 773; Rear- *167 den v. Rearden, 210 Ala. 129, 97 So. 138; Cross v. Cross, 200 Ala. 21, 75 So. 333.

¶3 True, the bill should charge that the husband failed or refused to support the wife. Jones v. Jones, 233 Ala. 642, 173 So. 49. The present bill charges a failure to support.

¶4 The bill could have well charged that the abandonment by the husband was not caused by the fault of the complainant, but if she was to blame, that would, at most, be defensive matter.

¶5 Nor did the bill have to enter into detail as to the income of the husband.

¶6 The trial court did not commit reversible error in overruling the appellant’s demurrer to the bill of complaint, and the decree of the circuit court is affirmed.

¶7 Affirmed.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.
/239/ala/166 · .json · Public domain