Coffee v. Coffee

• Decision Date: 17 January 1927
• Docket Number: 26128
• Citation: 145 Miss. 872,111 So. 377
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: COFFEE v. COFFEE. [*] ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR

111 So. 377

145 Miss. 872

COFFEE v. COFFEE. ^[*] ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR

No. 26128

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 17, 1927

Division B

Suggestion of Error Overruled Feb. 14, 1927.

APPEAL from chancery court of Pearl River county, HON. T. P. DALE Chancellor.

Suit by Lethea Mae Coffee against Wilkie Coffee for divorce. From a judgment granting defendant a divorce on his cross-bill complainant appeals. Judgment affirmed, and suggestion of error overruled.

Suggestion of error overruled.

John A. Yeager, for appellant.

By a casual observance of the record in this cause it will be seen that the chancellor based his decree upon the "old common-law theory of the superiority of the husband and the subordination of the wife." "Alimony is a vested right on a proper case being made out. It arises out of the marriage contract to maintain the wife; together, if they live happily; separate, if unhappy circumstances should separate them without criminality on the part of the wife." 1 Bl. Com. 441; 2 Bl. Com. 302.

In America a broader jurisdiction in cases of alimony has been asserted in some of our courts of equity. See Garland v. Garland, 50 Miss. 694. "Persistently cruel and inhuman treatment, occasionally characterized by personal violence, so as to beget the apprehension that it will occur again whenever fury impels the offender, under Code of 1871, section 1767, is cause for a divorce from the bonds of matrimony." Johns v. Johns, 57 Miss. 530.

"After a statute has been settled by judicial construction, the construction becomes as much a part of the statute as the text itself." Douglass v. Pike, 101 U.S. 687. The husband has the duty to support his wife and family; and part of this duty is to provide shelter. This is not only a private duty, but a public duty. Miles v. Miles (Ala.), 99 So. 187; Clisby v. Clisby, 49 So. 445; Ortman v. Ortman, 82 So. 417.

Currie & Currie, for appellee.

The court found that the appellant was not entitled to a divorce and dismissed her bill; the chancellor found that appellee was entitled to a divorce on the grounds charged in his cross-bill and granted the decree of divorce; the chancellor found that appellant was not entitled to alimony and decreed accordingly. The question of alimony is governed solely by a statute in Mississippi, section 1415, Hemingway's Code (section 1673, Code of 1906), which provides that when a divorce shall be decreed from the bonds of matrimony, the court may, in its discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case, as may seem equitable and just, make all orders touching the care, custody, and maintenance of the children of the marriage, and also touching the maintenance and alimony of the wife. See Winkler v. Winkler, 104 Miss. 1, 61 So. 1.

The testimony in this case preponderates overwhelmingly in favor of the appellee, Mr. Coffee, and the chancellor was correct in his finding as to the facts. The court followed both the law and the evidence in the case, and this court should not disturb the chancellor's decree.

ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR.

OPINION

ETHRIDGE, J.

This cause was affirmed on a former day without opinion, and suggestion of error has been filed, challenging the correctness of that decision, and praying for a written opinion.

This case deals with one of those unfortunate phases of life which tend to show that all marriages are not made in heaven, even though they may be blessed by the priest or minister performing the ceremony.

The appellant filed a bill for divorce against her husband, the appellee, and her bill and proof tended to show that her husband was not the prince charming that husbands are painted in maiden fancy; that soon after the marriage the husband began to develop caveman tendencies, maltreating his wife and spending his time in riotous living. Among other vices claimed by...