Collins v. Collins
| Decision Date | 04 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 31307 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | COLLINS v. COLLINS |
1 DIVORCE.
In divorce proceeding court had power to enter decree requiring that divorced father pay specified sum monthly to divorced mother for support of the parties' child (Code 1930 section 1421).
2 DIVORCE.
In contempt proceeding against divorced husband for failure to comply with decree requiring that he pay specified monthly sum to divorced wife for support of the parties' child, introduction of decree requiring such payment made out prima facie case of contempt and imposed on divorced husband burden of proving his inability to make payments directed (Code 1930, section 1421).
3. DIVORCE.
Court's power to commit divorced husband to jail until he complies with decree requiring him to make monthly payments for support of child depends on divorced father's present ability to comply with the decree, and, in determining such ability, amount of past earnings and how they have been expended is not controlling (Code 1930, section 1421).
4. DIVORCE.
Where divorced husband was in bad health and without money or property and had no means of obtaining any except by his personal efforts in the practice of his profession, except twenty-eight dollars and thirty-seven cents, payable monthly, as veteran's compensation, commitment of husband to jail until he paid past-due installments allowed for support of child in divorce proceeding held error (Code 1930, section 1421).
HON. A. B. AMIS, Chancellor.
APPEAL from the chancery court of Jones county HON. A. B. AMIS, Chancellor.
Divorce proceedings between Floyd O. Collins and Martha P. Collins. From a decree adjudging Floyd O. Collins in contempt of court for his failure to comply with a former decree ordering him to pay Martha P. Collins twenty dollars per month for the support of their minor child, Floyd O. Collins appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Leonard B. Melvin, of Laurel, for appellant.
The court below in deciding this case, as will be shown from his written opinion found at pages 85-90 inclusive in the record, based its opinion, if indeed there was any basis therefor, upon the holding of this court in the case of Ramsay v. Ramsay, 87 So. 491.
It is clear to our minds, after reading this case that the Ramsay case, supra, not only is not authority for the decree rendered by court in this case, but is conclusive authority against the rendition of the judgment under the facts in the case at bar.
The judgment of the court should be reversed and remanded.
Jeff Collins, of Laurel, for appellant.
Appellee, so far as her right to sue appellant is concerned, bore no other relationship than that of a stranger. She had already been divorced from him and settlement had been made in full of alimony and attorney's fee. She had no right then, as against appellant, and it was so held by the court, to go into the question of alimony.
Rawlings case, 83 So. 146; Valentine v. Sinkfield, 133 So. 210.
The testimony in this case shows beyond doubt that appellant has no money and had no money at the time the decree adjudging him in contempt was entered.
This is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court of the second judicial district of Jones county, adjudging the appellant in contempt of court for his failure to comply with a former decree ordering him to pay the appellee twenty dollars per month for the support of their minor child.
On September 24, 1928, in a decree granting the appellant a divorce from the appellee, the temporary custody of their minor child was awarded to the appellee. On the 3d day of November, 1932, on the petition of the appellee, the custody of the child was again awarded to her until the further order of the court, and the appellant was ordered to pay her twenty dollars per month for the support and maintenance of the child. In October, 1933, upon the petition of appellee, the appellant was cited to appear and show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of the court for having failed to comply with this decree requiring him to make monthly payments for the support and maintenance of the child. Upon the hearing of this petition, a decree was entered adjudging that the appellant was in arrears in these payments to the amount of fifty dollars, which he had not in good faith attempted to pay; that he was in contempt for his failure and refusal to pay this sum; and that he be committed to jail until he paid the said sum, or otherwise purged his contempt of the court.
The first contention of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masonite Corp. v. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO
...contempt. Lewis v. Lewis,213 Miss. 434, 57 So.2d 163 (1952); Vogel v. Vogel, 200 Miss. 576, 28 So.2d 217 (1946); Collins v. Collins, 171 Miss. 891, 158 So. 914 (1935); Annot., 53 A.L.R.2d 591, 618 (1957); Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice § 669 at 736 n. 82(b) (2d ed.1950). Parentheti......
-
Clements v. Young, 55153
...had not paid the above sum. Our law is settled that such a showing makes out a prima facie case of contempt. Collins v. Collins, 171 Miss. 891, 895, 158 So. 914, 915 (1934); Hand, Mississippi Divorce, Alimony and Child Custody, Sec. 14-3, p. 215 (1981). In such a posture, the defendant may ......
- In Re: On Suggestion Of Error
- King v. Jones