Court Opinion

ID: 9667050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:33:48.504586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:34.473693
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, J., dissenting. The original complaint stated a cause of action. Pleadings are to be construed liberally on demurrer, but the majority are taking a very narrow view of the appellant’s complaint. Her allegation that a certain amount of back alimony is due states a cause of action, and that should conclude our inquiry. It is true that the prayer asks that the defendant be punished for contempt, but this is civil contempt and is therefore remedial rather than punitive. What the plaintiff wants is payment of the debt, not the pleasure of seeing her former husband in jail. For that matter, the court could have held the defendant in contempt by first entering a judgment of its own for tlie amount due; so the prayer was not altogether irrelevant. Finally, we have often held that it is the statement of facts and not the prayer for relief that governs; the court may grant whatever relief the facts warrant. Grytbak v. Grytbak, 216 Ark. 674, 227 S. W. 2d 633. Since this complaint states a cause of action, the badly worded prayer should be treated as surplusage.