Ives v. IvesIves v. Ives
This appeal is from a decree overruling demurrer to a bill in equity which seeks a personal judgment for past due amounts decreed by a court of equity in Florida as alimony on granting a divorce. The decree providеd “that one-half of defendant’s salary up to and including $20.00 per week be аnd the same is hereby fixed and allowed to the plaintiff as alimony to be рaid by defendant to the plaintiff only when defendant is gainfully employed, to bе paid to plaintiff weekly or semi-weekly, depending upon the manner in which defendant receives his salary.”
This decree in Florida is subject to the comment made in McAlister v. McAlister,
*690 But as appellant correctly argues if сomplainant is entitled to a personal judgment in Alabama, on the basis of the installments decreed in Florida, a court of law is ample to rendеr such a judgment, and since relief at law is adequate, equity will not take jurisdictiоn. The case of McAlister v. McAlister, supra, refers to the rule that an action in debt may be maintained at law on a decree in equity for the pаyment of money inmmediately upon its rendition, and also for future installments when they become due, and which are not then subject to modification by the court which rendered the decree, and are then complete. If thе Florida decree will not support a suit in debt at law in Alabama, there is no equitable principle here pointed out which will justify a suit in equity in Alabama for that purpose.
The decree in question is not for a fixed and definite sum. Its аmount is dependent upon whether defendant is gainfully employed and what his salary is and when payable. A decree which does not definitely ascеrtain and fix the amount to be paid, and time of payment, and which attaсhes any contingency to its payment will not support an action at law until the court rendering the decree has ascertained the amount and removed the contingency. This was pointed out in our case of McAlister v. McAlister, supra, and in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Stokes, supra.
The case of Green v. Green,
A court of equity has no more power under such circumstances than a court of law to render a personal decree for money except of course the court of equity which rendered the dеcree in the first instance. Neither court in this State has jurisdiction to render а personal judgment on a decree such as is here declared on until the Florida court ascertains and decrees the existence of the matters there left open on the basis of which the amount is to be fixed. The court of equity which renders the decree is the only court of equity which will entertain a bill to enforce it, Griffin v. Spence,
The demurrer to the bill should have been sustained. A decree t'o that effect is here rendered, allowing twenty days in which to amend the bill if advisable in the light of our cases.
Reversed, rendered and remanded.