{
  "id": 1488300,
  "name": "Gladfelter v. Gladfelter",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gladfelter v. Gladfelter",
  "decision_date": "1943-06-07",
  "docket_number": "4-7090",
  "first_page": "1019",
  "last_page": "1023",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ark. 1019"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "172 S.W.2d 246"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "241 Ala. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        5153121
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/241/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 So. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "So.",
      "case_ids": [
        3623875
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/217/0176-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ala. 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala.",
      "case_ids": [
        3623875,
        3624126
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala/217/0176-02",
        "/ala/217/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S. W. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/63/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 73",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881099
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0073-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893408
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S. W. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ark. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1495611
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/79/0473-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 5568,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.360582367093675e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9435884099806591
    },
    "sha256": "7ca92593cd440c1d1af1b8051e4d9dcc374062295f5ca6c27fa6352a810111d4",
    "simhash": "1:b49db6e7d4286db6",
    "word_count": 941
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:03.571044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gladfelter v. Gladfelter."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nOn August 18, 1942, appellee sued appellant for divorce in the Jefferson chancery court.\nSeptember 8, 1942, appellant filed answer and cross-complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint and alleging that a decree was entered by an Alabama court in her favor for $27.50 per week \u201cfor her son and herself\u201d against the plaintiff (appellee here), \u201cand the plaintiff is a considerable sum in arrears pursuant to said decree,\u201d and prayed that appellee\u2019s complaint be dismissed \u201cand for judgment for the full amount of such arrears under the said (Alabama) decree against the plaintiff (appellee here).\u201d\nOctober 27, 1942, appellant filed \u201cAmendment to answer and cross-complaint, petition.for attorney\u2019s fee, alimony and expenses for suit pendente lite.\u2019\u2019 She alleged that appellee was in arrears from January 31, 1942, under the Alabama decree, in the amount of $745, which included allowance of an attorney\u2019s fee to an Alabama attorney in the amount of $75. She prayed for the balance due under the Alabama decree and \u201cthat the court enter proper orders for the enforcement of the said (Alabama) decree, and a reasonable sum for counsel fees, alimony and expenses for suit pendente lite.\u201d The Alabama decree, which appellant pleaded in her answer and cross-complaint, supra, filed September 8,1942, was made an exhibit to and a part of this amendment to appellant\u2019s answer and cross-complaint.\nOn December 16, 1942, appellant filed \u201cMotion for abatement and dismissal.\u201d She asked that appellee\u2019s suit for divorce be abated till he had paid the balance dne under the. Alabama decree, which she alleged then amounted to $910.\nOn the same date, December 16, 1942, appellee filed response to appellant\u2019s cross-complaint, interposing, a general denial.\nJanuary 16, 1943, the trial court heard the cause on the pleadings, and denied appellant\u2019s petition for abatement and dismissal of appellee\u2019s suit, but granted her prayer for \u201calimony pendente lite,\u201d and ordered that she be paid $27.50 per week, beginning January 1, 1943, until further orders of the court. From that decree comes this appeal.\nFor reversal, appellant first contends that the court erred in refusing to allow, and direct, the weekly payments of alimony pendente lite to her, to begin September 8,1942, when she filed answer to appellee\u2019s complaint in the Jefferson chancery court;\nWe cannot agree with this contention. Section 4388, Pope\u2019s Digest, provides: \u201cDuring the pendency of an action for divorce or alimony, the court may allow the wife maintenance and a reasonable fee for her attorneys, and enforce the- payment of the same by orders and executions and proceedings as in cases of contempt.\u201d Civil Code, \u00a7 460.\nThis court has uniformly held that a decree allowing suit money and alimony during the pendency of a suit for divorce is a final judgment which is appealable. Shirley v. Shirley, 79 Ark. 473, 96 S. W. 164; Glenn v. Glenn, 44 Ark. 46; Countz v. Countz, 30 Ark. 73. In fact, this appears to be the rule in most jurisdictions. Under the subject \u201cDivorce\u201d the textwriter in 27 C. J. S., \u00a7 284, sub-title, \u201cEight to Eeview,\u201d says: \u201cOrders as to alimony, counsel fees, and suit money pendente lite, are generally held appealable.\u201d\nThis court has also consistently held that the questions of alimony, and the amount to be allowed to the wife, during tlie pendency of a suit for divorce, together with her costs and attorney\u2019s fees, are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless there has been abuse of this discretion the court\u2019s action will not be disturbed here.\nIn Plant v. Plant, 63 Ark. 128, 37 S. W. 308, this court held (quoting the headnote) that \u201cThe allowance of alimony to a wife during the pendency of a suit by her for divorce, and of her costs and attorney\u2019s fees, is within the discretion of the chancellor, under Sand. & H. Digest, \u00a7 2512 (now \u00a7 4388, Pope\u2019s Digest) providing that during the pendency of an action for divorce the court may allow the wife maintenance and a reasonable attorney\u2019s fee.\u201d\nWe find no evidence in the record presented here of any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.\nAppellant next argues that the court erred in refusing to abate appellee\u2019s suit until he had complied with the Alabama decree, supra.\nThe Alabama decree was interlocutory, and fixed temporary alimony and maintenance in the amount of $27.50 per week. Under the Alabama laws and the holdings of the Supreme Court of that state, such a decree for temporary alimony is- not appealable, and cannot, therefore, be recognized and given by this court that full faith and credit accorded to a final judgment of a court of a sister state and required under \u00a7 1, art. 4, of the Constitution of the United States.\nIn Ex parte Apperson, 217 Ala. 176, 115 So. 226, the Supreme Court of that state said: \u201cThere is no statute providing for review of an interlocutory decree fixing temporary alimony.\u201d See, also, Ex parte Bragg, 241 Ala. 214, 2 So. 2d 393.\nThe textwriter in 34 C. J. 1133, \u00a7 1.609 (2), announces the rule in this language: \u201cIn order that a judgment or decree of one state may be recognized and enforced in a sister state, it is necessary that the judgment shall be final, and not interlocutory, . . ,\u201d etc.\nWe hold, therefore, that the court did not err in refusing to abate appellee\u2019s suit before consideration on its merits.\nFinding no error the decree i.s affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. R. Cooper, for appellant.",
      "L. DeWoody Lyle and Sam M. Levine, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gladfelter v. Gladfelter.\n4-7090\n172 S. W. 2d 246\nOpinion delivered June 7, 1943.\nA. R. Cooper, for appellant.\nL. DeWoody Lyle and Sam M. Levine, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1019-01",
  "first_page_order": 1039,
  "last_page_order": 1043
}