Supreme Court of Alabama, 1947

Jones v. Jones

Supreme Court of Alabama · Decided May 8, 1947 · Livingston

31 So. 2d 81; 249 Ala. 374; 1947 Ala. LEXIS 368 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Nelson v. Darling Shop of Birmingham, Inc. (Ala. 1963)
Ex Parte Carroll (Ala. 1960)
Ray v. Blair (Ala. 1952)
Rivers v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
ALABAMA STATE TENURE COM'N v. Mt. Brook Bd. of Ed. (Ala. 1976)
Alabama State Tenure Commission v. Mountain Brook Board of Education (Ala. 1976)
Knight v. State ex rel. Butler (Ala. 1972)
Lamar County Board of Education v. Steedley (Ala. Civ. App. 1970)
Nichols v. Nichols (Ala. Civ. App. 1970)
Local 612, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Bowman Transportation, Inc. (Ala. 1964)
Ex Parte Morris (Ala. 1949)
Ex Parte Hennies (Ala. Ct. App. 1947)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court, in Equity, of Jefferson County, Alabama, adjudging Robert Jones in contempt of court for his failure or refusal to pay an award for separate maintenance to his wife in accordance with the decree of that court. Appellant also on submission prayed for the alternative writ of mandamus in the event the appeal was found not to be the proper remedy.

It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that contempt proceedings are not reviewable by appeal ttnder our statutes. The remedy is by certiorari. Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551, 87 Am.Dec. 49; Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218; Alabama Power Co. v. Adams, 191 Ala. 54, 67 So. 838, Ann.Cas.1917C, 878; Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 193 Ala. 521, 542, 68 So. 971; Preskitt v. Chandler, 214 Ala. 278, 107 So. 750; Bankston v. Lakeman, 219 Ala. 508, 122 So. 819; Pope v. State, 229 Ala. 643, 159 So. 51.

The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy grantable only when petitioner shows a clear, specific legal right for the enforcement of which there is no other adequate remedy. Poyner v. Whiddon, 234 Ala. 168, 174 So. 507. It will not lie for the mere purpose of review. Ex parte Hartwell, 238 Ala. 62, 188 So. 891. Certiorari affords appellant petitioner an adequate remedy, and is the only available remedy to review the action of the trial court in a civil contempt proceeding.

The appeal is dismissed, and the writ of mandamus is denied.

Appeal dismissed: mandamus denied.

All the Justices concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.