Bernard v. Bernard, 37282
| Decision Date | 31 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 37282,37282 |
| Citation | 43 So.2d 727 |
| Parties | BERNARD v. BERNARD. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Sams & Jolly, Columbus, Miss., Alexander & Alexander, Jackson, Miss., for appellant.
Roger C. Landrum, Columbus, Miss., for appellee.
Mrs. Bernard filed this bill in the chancery court of Lowndes County, Mississippi, praying: (1) for a divorce from appellant, (2) alimony and counsel fees, and (3) for custody and proper allowance for support of their minor son, and (4) attorney's fees to the wife to prosecute the cause of action. The chancellor sustained all of the prayers of the bill, decreeing that appellant pay the wife $150 per month alimony and $50 per month for support of the minor child, and $250 solicitor's fees.
On this appeal it is contended (a) the court did not have jurisdiction of the cause of action, (b) the proof did not justify granting of a divorce to appelle, (c) that the amount of alimony to the wife and that for support of the child were excessive, and (d) the court should not have allowed to the wife any sum as solicitor's fees.
We have thoroughly studied and considered all the questions raised on the appeal. Without reviewing the evidence in detail we have concluded the court had jurisdiction of the cause of action, that the proof justified the granting of the divorce, that the amount of alimony to the wife and support of the child were liberal, but not so excessive as to justify us in reversing the finding of the chancellor, especially since this may be modified under future changed conditions, but that the allowance of solicitor's fees was erroneous. On the latter question the proof is clear the wife had ample means to engage the services of an attorney. Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 159 So. 112. Therefore, the decree is affirmed except as to the allowance of solicitor's fees.
Affirmed as modified.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brown v. Ohman, 37171
-
Wray v. Langston, 51705
...attorney's fees for appellee? Appellant contends that appellee had an estate sufficient to pay her attorney and cites Bernard v. Bernard, 43 So.2d 727 (Miss.1949) and Robinson v. Robinson, 112 Miss. 224, 72 So. 923 (1916), as authority that attorney's fees should not have been In Gresham v.......