Anderson v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 42935,42935
• Citation: Anderson v. Anderson, 162 So.2d 853, 249 Miss. 1 (Miss. 1964)
• Parties: Mrs. Lucille ANDERSON v. G. H. (Dick) ANDERSON.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 853

162 So.2d 853

249 Miss. 1

Mrs. Lucille ANDERSON v.G. H. (Dick) ANDERSON.

No. 42935.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 13, 1964.

Cunningham & Cunningham, Booneville, Armis E. Hawkins, Houston, for appellant.

Thomas J. Tubb, West Point, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Justice.

Mrs. Lucille Richardson Anderson filed her bill for divorce against G. H. (Dick) Anderson and prayed for the allowance of alimony.On motion for alimony pendente lite the court allowed complainant the sum of $175 per month and $250 attorney's fees.The cause came on for final hearing and the court rendered an opinion in which he stated that most of the charges made by complainant against her husband were not established by the evidence.He did find that defendant had made unfounded charges of a very serious nature against complainant's daughter and had inflicted brutal treatment on said daughter, and that he had inflicted physical damage on complainant on one occasion.A decree was entered awarding complainant a decree on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment.Complainant was allowed $500 additional attorney's fees but was denied alimony.Complainant appealed.Hereinafter complainant will be referred to as Wife and the defendant as Husband.

The parties were married June 21, 1957.Husband had previously been married four times, three of which ended in divorce.Wife's one previous marriage ended in divorce.Husband had one son by a previous marriage who lived elsewhere.Wife had a teenage daughter by her first marriage.This daughter and Husband were antagonistic and much of the trouble between Husband and Wife concerned this daughter.The parties separated February 3, 1962.

The principal contention of the Wife is that the court erred in not awarding alimony.Another assignment of error is based on the contention that the chancellor erred in refusing to reopen the case and allow the wife to introduce testimony concerning her need for alimony.These contentions will be considered together.

The Husband testified on the motion for temporary alimony and it appears therefrom that he is a man of considerable wealth.He stated in that hearing that he was financially able to give his wife a reasonable amount.When the case was heard on the merits the only additional evidence concerning alimony was the Wife's testimony.She said the only properly she owned was a home in Trenton, Tennessee from which she received a small rental which was her only income.She testified that she has high blood pressure and was under a physician's care at the time of the trial.In short, the Husband is a man of wealth and the Wife is in ill health, unable to work, with only a small income from the house owned by her in Tennessee.

When the chancellor completed hearing the testimony on final hearing, he stated in his opinion that there was no testimony before the court showing the need of the wife and denied alimony.After the rendition of this opinion, the court entered a decree providing that a final decree would be rendered in vacation.The final day of the trial on which the opinion was rendered was December 8, 1962.Thereafter, on December 12, 1962, before the final decree was entered, the Wife made a motion to reopen the case for the admission of testimony concerning her need for alimony.The court overruled this motion and refused to...