Case Title: Horsley v. Horsley

Citation: 280 So. 2d 155

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1973-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
280 So. 2d 155 (1973)
In re Dortha Lee HORSLEY
v.
John Henry HORSLEY.
Ex parte John HORSLEY.
SC 410.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 28, 1973.
Caine O'Rear, Jr., Jasper, for petitioner.
James E. Wilson, Jasper, for respondent.
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
Petition of John Horsley for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals to *156 review and revise judgment and decision of that court in Horsley v. Horsley, 50 Ala.App. 445, 280 So. 2d 150 (1973) is denied.
In denying the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, this court does not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving all of the language used or the statements of law made in the opinion of this case in the Court of Civil Appeals. See Mobile Pure Milk Co. v. Coleman, 230 Ala. 432, 161 So. 829; Opelika Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 286 Ala. 460, 241 So. 2d 331; Cooper v. State, 287 Ala. 728, 252 So. 2d 108; and Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Brindley, 289 Ala. 755, 266 So. 2d 150.
Writ denied.
HEFLIN, C. J., and McCALL and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.
COLEMAN, J., concurs specially.
COLEMAN, Justice (concurring specially):
In the instant case, it appears from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals that decree was rendered in favor of the wife granting divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the action of the trial court in granting the wife "no award of alimony was arbitrary," and reversed.
The allowance of alimony in the instant case is authorized by Title 34, §§ 31, 32, Code 1940, which recite:
With respect to granting alimony and attorney's fees this court has said:
The husband applies for certiorari and asserts that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in holding that "... the learned trial court erred to reversal when it failed to grant a reasonable sum to the wife as alimony from the income of the husband as such failure was an abuse of judicial discretion."
In order to determine whether the Court of Civil Appeals is correct in its holding as aforesaid, this court would necessarily be required to review the evidence in the transcript which was before the Court of Civil Appeals.
This court has denied certiorari to review judgment of the Court of Appeals where review would involve a consideration of evidence not set out in the opinion. City of Prichard v. Harold, 237 Ala. 277, 186 So. 504.
For the reason stated in the authorities cited I concur in the denial of the application for certiorari.