Bradford v. Bradford
| Decision Date | 12 May 1902 |
| Citation | 31 So. 963,80 Miss. 467 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | EUGENE BRADFORD v. SALINA BRADFORD |
March 1902
FROM the chancery court of Harrison county. HON. STONE DEVOURS Chancellor.
Salina Bradford, appellee, was complainant in the court below Eugene Bradford, appellant, was defendant there. Salina sued Eugene for a divorce, claiming the same on two grounds, one that Eugene, her husband, had deserted her for two full years or more, and the other that he had been guilty of adultery. The charges of the bill were denied by Eugene in his answer. This being the state of the pleadings, Salina made application to the court for alimony pendente lite, the facts on the hearing of which are stated in the opinion of the court. The court below granted the application, and Eugene appealed from the decree so doing to the supreme court.
Reversed.
W. H Maybin, for appellant.
In the case at bar, the rule that the burden is on the complainant is not abrogated because the complainant is a woman and wife and the proceedings are for alimony pendente lite; nor is it to be departed from in the slightest degree, because society and public policy require that every safeguard be thrown around the marital relation.
The appellant, in season and out, labored with a persistence worthy of any cause, to get his wife to return to him, and resume the marital relation that had been broken by no fault or omission on his part.
The real motive that lies beneath this case is not a desire to obtain a decree, but the suit was brought because the husband declines to convey a half interest to property in Louisiana that is in very truth all his own, and the result of his own labor and economy, the other half of which he has already given to his wife, and its purpose is to compel him to convey.
The complainant tramples under foot every duty resting on her, with the reckless, scornful dash of a modern Sancho Panza, in petticoats.
The needs of the wife, and the ability of the husband to pay, seem to have been the sole issues determined in proceedings for alimony pendente lite, but surely it cannot be seriously contended, that in a court of equity, the power and right to determine when the question is squarely and sharply raised, that the bill was not filed in good faith.
Alimony pendente lite is not a vested right, but is a matter that lies in the sound discretion of the court. 2 Bish. on Marriage and Divorce, secs. 430, 9336, and 939.
This is purely a plain case of "stand and deliver," unsanctioned by reason, law, right, morals, or equity. If it finds judicial approval, the law is a maudlin jest and equity a conscienceless comedy.
Harper & Potter and Harper & Harper, for appellee.
It is too elementary and well settled to require argument or citation of authorities to sustain the proposition that on the hearing of the motion in question, it was the duty of the chancellor to take the allegations of the bill as to the merits of the controversy as true, and that the only question open to evidence was as to the financial ability of the wife to carry on the divorce proceedings. All else in the testimony was wholly irrelevant. The casual statement of the wife in her testimony that she brought this suit to force her husband to convey to her the land in Louisiana, has nothing to do with her right to maintain this suit. What she really meant by this statement, as is manifest from a reading of the testimony, was that she did not care particularly for a divorce, but that she did want and expect a support from her husband,...
To continue reading
Request your trial