Opinion

Davis v. Davis

  • 241 Ala. 385
  • 2 So. 2d 780
  • 1941 Ala. LEXIS 110
Court
Supreme Court of Alabama
Filed
Jun 5, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Thomas
On the bench
Thomas, Gardner, Brown, Foster
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 94.2%

The opinion

THOMAS, Justice.

The appeal is from a decree denying the husband’s bill for divorce.

It will serve no good purpose to indulge in a discussion of the evidence. Code 1923, § 10336, Code of 1940, Tit. 13, § 66.

In Barley v. Wright et al., 233 Ala. 283 , 171 So. 247, 248 , it is declared: “The question for consideration is one of fact, and in such cases, since the passage of the Act of 1915, p. 594 (section 10336, Michie’s Code [Code 1940, Tit. 13, § 66]), it has not been the policy of this court to enter into a detailed discussion of the evidence. Caples v. Young, 206 Ala. 282 , 89 So. 460 . We rest content, therefore, with rather general statements and conclusions, after a most careful study of the proof.”

*386

This record has been examined and the court is of the opinion and hold that the decree of the circuit court is due to be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN and FOSTER, JJ., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.