Cassell v. Cassell
| Decision Date | 14 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | 4-8145 |
| Parties | Cassell v. Cassell |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Searcy Chancery Court; J. M. Shinn, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
N J. Henley, for appellant.
William T. Mills, Jr., and William T. Mills, for appellee.
This was an action for divorce brought by appellee against appellant on the ground of general indignities. A cross-complaint by appellant charged appellee with misconduct in keeping company with another man. Appellant was inducted into the armed forces of the United States in April, 1944 and was discharged in May, 1946, a goodly portion of his service being rendered overseas, in the E. T. O. They have a young son, about six years of age at the time of trial, whose custody is here involved. They had acquired a homestead in the city of Marshall, due to their joint efforts, title to which is in appellant. The possession and use of this homestead is also here involved, as also that of a 1940 Chevrolet car.
Due to an admitted act of condonation which occurred shortly before the trial in the lower court, the complaint and the cross-complaint were dismissed as being without equity, in so far as each sought a divorce from the other. The court found that appellee is the owner of the car and is entitled to its possession. Also that she is entitled to the temporary custody of the child, and the custody of the dwelling property, used and occupied as their homestead. A decree was entered in accordance with these findings, from which comes this appeal.
For a reversal of this decree appellant contends first that the court erred in granting appellee the possession of the homestead, and was without power to award her the car, the family bankroll and all the furniture in the home. We think the decree as to the homestead and its contents did not amount to an order of permanent distribution. It vested no title thereto in her. It gave her only "the custody of the dwelling property, used and occupied as their homestead." She and their child had been residing therein all the time appellant was away in the armed services, except such time as she spent with him at army camps where he was undergoing training before going overseas. We think the trial court had the jurisdiction to make the order here made. Austin v. Austin, 143 Ark 222, 220 S.W. 46; Sheppard v. Sheppard, 181 Ark. 367, 26 S.W.2d 88. As to the 1940 Chevrolet car awarded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Weber
...we must find that Mrs. Weber's unfitness as a mother was established by a clear preponderance of the evidence. See Cassell v. Cassell, 211 Ark. 489, 200 S.W.2d 965. This we cannot It should be noted that appellant once agreed that his wife might have custody of the daughter, but changed his......
-
Ettinger v. Ettinger, 7238
...which contain language such as contended for by appellant (see Oliver v. Oliver, 1958, 217 Md. 222, 140 A.2d 908; Cassell v. Cassell, 1947, 211 Ark. 489, 200 S.W.2d 965) and some states, such as California and Michigan (Cal. Civil Code, Sec. 138; Mich.Comp. Laws 1948, Sec. 722.541), whose s......
- Robertson v. Robertson
-
Deam v. Deam, 5-3599
...We have held that the trial court may grant the wife possession of the homestead although no divorce is awarded. Cassell v. Cassell, 211 Ark. 489, 200 S.W.2d 965. To the same effect is Goodin v. Goodin, 232 Ark. 853, 340 S.W.2d 580, where it is pointed out that the order giving the wife pos......