Chenault v. Chenault

• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McKinney
• Citation: Chenault v. Chenault, 37 Tenn. 248 (Tenn. 1856)
• Decision Date: 31 December 1856
• Parties: SUSAN CHENAULT v. JOHN CHENAULT.

37 Tenn. 248

SUSAN CHENAULT

v.JOHN CHENAULT.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

December Term, 1856.

FROM SUMNER.

This was a bill for divorce and alimony, filed in the circuit court at Gallatin. At the February term, 1857, Judge Turner rendered a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony, and setting apart the sum of $2,700 as the wife's allowance. To reverse this latter portion of the decree, the cause is brought by writ of error into this court. The substance of the decree is given in the opinion of the court.

Guild and Winchester, for the complainant; Head & Turner, for the defendant.

McKinney, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The error complained of in this cause is, that upon granting a divorce from the bond of matrimony--which is not sought to be questioned--the chancellor decreed that the defendant should pay to complainant the sum of $2,700, being more than double the value of his entire estate.

It seems from the proof, that the complainant is only eighteen years of age and that she separated from the defendant a few months after the marriage, in consequence of ill-treatment. The parties are both of families of respectability and considerable wealth. Shortly after the marriage, the defendant's father put him in possession of a tract of land, valued at from seven to eight thousand dollars, under perhaps a verbal promise that he would convey it to him; and gave him, absolutely, some personal property of but little value. The father of complainant sent with her, but without parting with the title, a negro woman and child, and some articles of personal property necessary to house-keeping; all of which were restored to the complainant, on the separation, and the defendant made sale of all his personal property, with the view of a removal to Texas.

It was referred to the master, to enquire and report the value of the defendant's estate, and what ought to be allowed to the complainant. The master in his report estimated the value of defendant's estate at $1,155. He also estimated that it would require $200 per annum to furnish complainant a reasonable maintenance, and that from his calculation of the probable duration of her life, she was entitled to receive the sum of $2,700. The report was not excepted to, and the chancellor adopted it and decreed accordingly. The principle of the decree is altogether erroneous. The latest statutory provision upon this subject (act of 1842, ch. 133, sec. 2) empowers the court, in all cases of divorce, to decree to the wife so divorced, such part of the real and personal property of the husband as the court shall think proper, having reference, of course, to all those considerations which properly belong to the determination of the question. This provision, though in terms applicable to all cases of divorce, obviously was intended to apply only to divorces from the bond...