Opinion ID: 1837037
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: on suggestion of error and motion for alimony during pendency of appeal, and for attorney's fee on appeal

Text: McGEHEE, C.J. Upon further consideration we are still of the opinion that the decision herein rendered on June 13, 1955, on the direct and cross-appeals was correct and that the suggestion of error should be overruled. (Hn 19) The motion for an allowance of alimony to the appellant, Mrs. Leone R. Duvall, pending the appeal take by her, and for the allowance of an attorney's fee on the appeal, had been passed until a consideration of the case on the merits, but the motion was not specifically dealt with in the opinion rendered on June 13, 1955 on the direct and cross-appeals. However, we are of the opinion that the record fails to disclose that the wife was in necessitous circumstances or unable to pay a fee to her attorney for prosecuting the appeal. She had obtained an equal division of property by the decree appealed from. The trial court would have been without authority to divest the husband of his title to one-half of the property and vest the same in the wife except for the fact that by his answer the husband agreed that she was entitled to such a division. Therefore, we do not think that the record presents a case for the allowance of alimony pending the appeal, or for the allowance to her of an attorney's fee for prosecuting the appeal, and the motion as well as the suggestion of error should be overruled. Suggestion of error and the motion overruled. Hall, Kyle, Arrington and Gillespie, JJ., concur.