33 So. 717 (Miss. 1903), Larson v. Larson
|Citation:||33 So. 717, 82 Miss. 116|
|Opinion Judge:||CALHOON, J.|
|Party Name:||LOUISA LARSON v. JOHN LARSON ET AL|
|Attorney:||Ford & White, for appellant. Harper & Potter and Harper & Harper, for appellees. Argued orally by W. A. White, for appellant, and W. R. Harper, for appellee.|
|Case Date:||March 02, 1903|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Mississippi|
FROM the chancery court of Harrison county. Hon. STONE DEAVOURS, Chancellor.
Mrs. Larson, the appellant, was complainant in the court below, her husband, John Larson, and his vendees of the homestead, appellees, were defendants there.
The bill of complaint showed the marriage of the complainant to the defendant, John, his abandonment of his wife and removal from Mississippi to Minnesota, and further showed all the necessary facts to entitle the wife to recover a personal decree for alimony, but the husband was served with process only by publication in a newspaper under code 1892 § 3421. The bill further charged that the husband had become insane, and that, after his abandonment of the wife and the homestead, he executed a deed to his codefendants purporting to convey his homestead, in which the wife did not join, conveying the same for a grossly inadequate sum, not exceeding one-fifth its value, and that the vendees in said deed had begun an action of ejectment against complainant for said homestead.
The bill sought an injunction against the ejectment, the cancellation of the deed, a decree for alimony, and prayed that the decree for alimony, temporary and permanent, be ad-judged a lien on the homestead.
The chancery court, denied all relief, the chancellor delivering a written opinion, holding that the wife had no such interest in the homestead as would enable her to have the deed canceled, citing Thoms v. Thoms, 45 Miss. 263; Massey v. Womble, 69 Miss, 347; s.c. 11 So. 188; Pounds v. Clarke, 70 Miss. 263; s.c. 14 So. 22; Gatti v. Supply Co., 77 Miss. 754; s.c. 27 So. 601; Duncan v. Moore, 67 Miss. 136; s.c. 7 So. 221. The chancellor further found that John Larson, the husband, was insane, and that alimony could not be granted in this proceeding, because of his insanity, and because he had not been personally served with process.
The bill having been dismissed, the complainant appealed to the supreme court.
The case at bar presents a different state of facts and is different in its legal aspect from any of the cases cited by the learned chancellor in support of his position. While, as a rule, the wife has no vested interest or title to the homestead, where the title...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP