Beeler v. Beeler
| Decision Date | 29 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1054.) |
| Citation | 218 S.W. 553 |
| Parties | BEELER v. BEELER. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Freestone County; A. M. Blackmon, Judge.
Suit for divorce by Bettie Beeler against Charles Beeler. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
A. B. Geppert, of Teague, for appellant.
Boyd & Bell, of Teague, for appellee.
This is a suit for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony filed by the wife, Bettie Beeler, against her husband, Charles Beeler.
The petition was filed on the 10th day of April, 1919. Charles Beeler filed his answer on the same day the petition was filed. The cause was heard, and judgment entered on the 12th day of April, 1919. Article 4632, Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statutes, provides that no suit for divorce from the bonds of matrimony shall be maintained in the courts of this state unless the petitioner for such divorce shall, at the time of exhibiting his or her petition, be an actual bona fide inhabitant of this state for a period of 12 months, and shall have resided in the county where the suit is filed 6 months next preceding the filing of the suit. The petition does not state the jurisdictional fact of the 12 months residence in this state. The same article of the statute further provides that such suit shall not be heard or divorce granted before the expiration of 30 days after the suit is filed. Here the suit was heard and divorce granted on the second day after the suit was filed. This was in direct violation of the provision of the statute. The statutory provision is mandatory, and compliance with its terms cannot be waived or dispensed with. Haymond v. Haymond, 74 Tex. 414, 12 S. W. 90; Brashear v. Brashear, 99 S. W. 568. There are other provisions of the same article of our statute, above referred to, to which we call the attention of the trial court in entering the decree.
Appellant complains of the following order of the court as to the alimony incorporated in and made a part of the decree of the court in granting the divorce:
"It is further considered and adjudged by the court that the plaintiff, Bettie Beeler, also have judgment against defendant, Charles Beeler, for the sum of fifty dollars for attorney's fees, and the further sum of $25.00 per month as alimony, same to be paid monthly by defendant, Charles Beeler, until further ordered by the court, for all of which let execution issue."
In view of another trial, we think it well to say that the order granted is objectionable. Article 4640, Vernon's Sayles' Civil Statutes, provides that the judge may, either in term time or in vacation, allow the wife a sum for her support until a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bagby v. Bagby, 5666.
...of which an execution may issue but it is a duty and the order for such may be enforced by contempt proceedings. Beeler v. Beeler, Tex.Civ.App., 218 S.W. 553; Ex parte Davis, 101 Tex. 607, 111 S.W. 394, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., Appellant complains because the trial court refused to allow credit for ......
-
London v. London, WD
...Boring v. Boring, 155 Kan. 99, 122 P.2d 743 (1942); Yarborough v. Yarborough, 276 S.C. 416, 279 S.E.2d 130 (1981); Beeler v. Beeler, 218 S.W. 553 (Tex.Civ.App.1920). ...
-
Ex parte Thompson, 18396
...S.W.2d 440 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1942, no writ); Hughes v. Hughes, 259 S.W. 180 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1924, writ dism'd); Beeler v. Beeler, 218 S.W. 553 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1920, no writ). A prejudgment alimony order was considered effective pending appeal in Williams v. Williams, 6......
-
Brunell v. Brunell
...639 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1935). In Bagby v. Bagby, 186 S.W.2d 702 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1945), citing Beeler v. Beeler, 218 S.W. 553 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso 1920) and Ex parte Davis,101 Tex. 607, 111 S.W. 394, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1140 (1908), the court says: 'Alimony is not in the nature......