
    (77 South. 233)
    UNDERWOOD v. UNDERWOOD et al.
    (4 Div. 691.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 15, 1917.
    Rebearing Denied Dec. 24, 1917.)
    Courts <&wkey;104^SuPREME Courts — Opinions.
    Under Acts 1915, p. 595, § 3, amending Code 1907, § 5999, so as to provide that justices of the Supreme Court shall not be required to write opinions in cases where the decisions relate to questions of fact only, etc., an opinion need not be rendered in a case where the only question at issue was the propriety of the chancellor’s determination of fact questions.
    Appeal from Chancery Court, Houston County; O. S. Lewis, Chancellor.
    Suit between Mrs. S. W. Underwood and J. B. Underwood, as administrator. From a decree for tbe latter, tbe former appeals.
    Affirmed.
    B. F. Reid, of Dothan, Steiner, Crum & Weil, and Rusbton, Williams & Crenshaw, all of Montgomery, for appellant.
    F. M. Gaines, T. M. Espy, and Farmer & Farmer, all of Dothan, for appellee.
   SOMERVILLE, J.

In this case tbe chancellor has filed bis opinion, in which be very fully and clearly reviews tbe evidence and applies tbe settled principles of law to tbe conclusions be has reached upon tbe issues of fact presented. We have likewise carefully reviewed tbe evidence in tbe light of tbe elaborate arguments presented by counsel, and we think tbe findings and decree of tbe chancellor should be affirmed.

Tbe evidence is very voluminous, and sharply conflicting in some of its most material aspects. Much may be and has been plausibly said in impeachment of tbe chancellor’s findings. For tbe satisfaction of counsel we would like to analyze and discuss tbe evidence in detail, but, in accordance with our present policy in deciding questions of fact (see Acts 1915, pp. 594, 595, § 3), we must simply announce our conclusion.

Let tbe decree of tbe chancery court be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and MAYFIELD and THOMAS, JJ., concur.  