decree error in Alabama

1991See Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat , 423 So.2d 888 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Roberts, supra; Taylor, supra. Our careful review of the record, viewed with the attendant presumptions, reveals that the husband's income at the time of the initial decree was disputed.

1982Roberts v. Roberts, supra; Taylor v. Taylor , 369 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978), cert. denied , 369 So.2d 1243 (Ala. 1979).

1991See Jeffcoat v. Jeffcoat , 423 So.2d 888 (Ala.Civ.App. 1982); Roberts, supra; Taylor, supra. Our careful review of the record, viewed with the attendant presumptions, reveals that the husband's income at the time of the initial decree was disputed.

1982Roberts v. Roberts, supra; Taylor v. Taylor , 369 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978), cert. denied , 369 So.2d 1243 (Ala. 1979).

1982Roberts v. Roberts, supra; Taylor v. Taylor , 369 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978), cert. denied , 369 So.2d 1243 (Ala. 1979).

1981Taylor v. Taylor , 369 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Civ.App. 1978), cert. denied , 369 So.2d 1243 (Ala. 1979).

2017As we explained in Tucker , "a modification is particularly disfavored in the case of a decree based on an agreement between the parties when so short a time, here approximately fourteen months, separates the decree and the hearing for modification." 588 So.2d at 497 .

1985See Varner v. Carr , [ 291 Ala. 654 , 286 So.2d 294 (1973);] and Edwards v. Farmer , 285 Ala. 118 , 229 So.2d 507 (1969)." 341 So.2d at 711-12 .

1985See Varner v. Carr , [ 291 Ala. 654 , 286 So.2d 294 (1973);] and Edwards v. Farmer , 285 Ala. 118 , 229 So.2d 507 (1969)." 341 So.2d at 711-12 .

1985See Varner v. Carr , [ 291 Ala. 654 , 286 So.2d 294 (1973);] and Edwards v. Farmer , 285 Ala. 118 , 229 So.2d 507 (1969)." 341 So.2d at 711-12 .

1973In Sharpe v. Miller, 157 Ala. 299 , 47 So. 701 , the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “Where a pleader has in his prayer mistaken the relief to which he is entitled on the facts stated in his bill, the amendment of his prayer conformable to the facts does not constitute a repugnancy. . . .” ( 157 Ala. at 303 , 47 So. at 702 ) We therefore find the court did not err to reversal in this instance.

1973In Sharpe v. Miller, 157 Ala. 299 , 47 So. 701 , the Alabama Supreme Court stated: “Where a pleader has in his prayer mistaken the relief to which he is entitled on the facts stated in his bill, the amendment of his prayer conformable to the facts does not constitute a repugnancy. . . .” ( 157 Ala. at 303 , 47 So. at 702 ) We therefore find the court did not err to reversal in this instance.

1971This court reversed the final decree for error in overruling the demurrer and remanded the cause. — Holz v. Lyles, 280 Ala. 521 , 195 So.2d 897 .

1971This court reversed the final decree for error in overruling the demurrer and remanded the cause. — Holz v. Lyles, 280 Ala. 521 , 195 So.2d 897 .

1962United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 , *591 67 S.Ct. 677 , 91 L.Ed. 884 ; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.

1962United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 , *591 67 S.Ct. 677 , 91 L.Ed. 884 ; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.

1962United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 , *591 67 S.Ct. 677 , 91 L.Ed. 884 ; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.

1962United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 , *591 67 S.Ct. 677 , 91 L.Ed. 884 ; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.

1962United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 , *591 67 S.Ct. 677 , 91 L.Ed. 884 ; Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181 , 42 S.Ct. 277 , 66 L.

1938Section 4893 of the Code provides: “When the commission of an offense, commenced here, is consummated without the boundaries of this state, the offender is liable to punishment therefor; and the jurisdiction in such case, unless otherwise provided by law, is in the county in which the offense was commenced.” The evidence being uncontradicted and without dispute, the question is whether obtaining a blank divorce decree from the register of the circuit court in Russell county was the commencement of the offense of forgery, which consisted in forging the j'udge’s name to the decree and the name o

1937Section 7450, Code 1923; Williams v. Anthony, 219 Ala. 98 , 121 So. 89 .

1937Section 7450, Code 1923; Williams v. Anthony, 219 Ala. 98 , 121 So. 89 .

1937In Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 200 Ala. 184 , 75 So. 932 , the authorities are collected to the effect that where the widow retains the use of the land of a deceased ■husband, she may so hold until dower is assigned without having to account for rents, income, and profits therefrom.

1937In Yarbrough v. Yarbrough, 200 Ala. 184 , 75 So. 932 , the authorities are collected to the effect that where the widow retains the use of the land of a deceased ■husband, she may so hold until dower is assigned without having to account for rents, income, and profits therefrom.

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1934Graves v. Brittingham, 209 Ala. 147 , 95 So. 542 ; McDonald v. Pearson, 114 Ala. 631 (8), 21 So. 534 ; Nichols v. Dill, 222 Ala. 455 , 132 So. 900 ; Snead v. Lee, 218 Ala. 44 , 117 So. 469 ; McCall v. McCurdy, 69 Ala. 65 ; Cunningham v. Wood, 224 Ala. 288 , 140 So. 351 .

1932We consider the question to have been settled adversely to complainants’ *55 contention by the case of Preston v. Dunn, 25 Ala. 507 , where the court said: “The Chancery Court is the general guardian of all infants within its jurisdiction, and by virtue of its general powers has authority to protect their rights, when defendants in that court, by the appointment of a guardian ad litem. * * * For this reason, if the infant is not brought into court by service before the appointment is made, we hold it to be an irregularity sufficient to reverse the decree on error ; but we have found no case, w

1930Smith v. Smith, 212 Ala. 133 , 101 So. 903 .

1930Smith v. Smith, 212 Ala. 133 , 101 So. 903 .

1928He must have determined that the proof of appellee’s case was “clear and convincing,” for that is the measure of proof required (Wise v. Miller, 215 Ala. 660 , 111 So. 913 ), and in such case the rule of this court has been to accord to the ruling and decree of the trial court a presumption of correctness outweighing the presumption in favor of the sheriff’s return. •Cases, supra. In the light of the foregoing authorities, the court has considered the record in this cause and is unwilling to hold the decree for error.

1928He must have determined that the proof of appellee’s case was “clear and convincing,” for that is the measure of proof required (Wise v. Miller, 215 Ala. 660 , 111 So. 913 ), and in such case the rule of this court has been to accord to the ruling and decree of the trial court a presumption of correctness outweighing the presumption in favor of the sheriff’s return. •Cases, supra. In the light of the foregoing authorities, the court has considered the record in this cause and is unwilling to hold the decree for error.

1917See, also, Russell v. Bell, 160 Ala. 480 , 49 South. 314 ; Gardner v. Kelso, 80 Ala. 497 , 2 South. 680 ; Winn v. Fitzwater, 151 Ala. 171 , 44 South. 97 ; Bogan v. Hamilton, 90 Ala. 454 , 8 South. 186 ; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210 ; Hanvell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344 .

1917See, also, Russell v. Bell, 160 Ala. 480 , 49 South. 314 ; Gardner v. Kelso, 80 Ala. 497 , 2 South. 680 ; Winn v. Fitzwater, 151 Ala. 171 , 44 South. 97 ; Bogan v. Hamilton, 90 Ala. 454 , 8 South. 186 ; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210 ; Hanvell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344 .

1917The omission of an indispensable party is a defect that will reverse the decree on error, though objection has not been made in the court of chancery.” A question of like character was presented in the more recent case of Harris. v. Johnson, 176 Ala. 445 , 58 South. 426 , and the holding there was in accord with the above-stated authorities.

1917The omission of an indispensable party is a defect that will reverse the decree on error, though objection has not been made in the court of chancery.” A question of like character was presented in the more recent case of Harris. v. Johnson, 176 Ala. 445 , 58 South. 426 , and the holding there was in accord with the above-stated authorities.

1917See, also, Russell v. Bell, 160 Ala. 480 , 49 South. 314 ; Gardner v. Kelso, 80 Ala. 497 , 2 South. 680 ; Winn v. Fitzwater, 151 Ala. 171 , 44 South. 97 ; Bogan v. Hamilton, 90 Ala. 454 , 8 South. 186 ; Broughton v. Mitchell, 64 Ala. 210 ; Hanvell v. Lehman, Durr & Co., 72 Ala. 344 .