Collins v. Collins

• Citation: 2 S.W.2d 41
• Decision Date: 30 January 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 146.)
• Parties: COLLINS v. COLLINS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

2 S.W.2d 41

COLLINS v. COLLINS.

(No. 146.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

January 30, 1928.

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; J. V. Bourland, Chancellor.

Suit for divorce by Alice Collins against F. D. Collins, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint. Decree dismissing complaint and cross-complaint, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Alice Collins brought this suit in equity against F. D. Collins to obtain a divorce on the statutory ground that her husband had offered her such indignities to her person as to render her condition in life intolerable. F. D. Collins filed an answer in which he denied the allegations of the complaint, and, by way of cross-complaint, asked for a divorce on the same statutory ground. He also asked for a trust to be declared in his favor in their home place, the title to which had been taken in the name of his wife. His wife filed a response to the cross-complaint in which she denied its allegations and averred that the title to their homestead was in herself.

The record shows that the parties to this action married in September, 1918, and lived together as husband and wife until the 1st day of April, 1926. Each of the parties had been married before and had children at the time of their intermarriage. The husband had a home in Van Buren, Ark., in which he lived at the time of their marriage. Subsequent to their marriage, they purchased a home in Ft. Smith in Sebastian county, Ark., and moved into it and lived there until their separation. The title in their home in Ft. Smith was taken in the name of the wife, and she paid $1,000 of the purchase money at the time of the purchase. The price agreed to be paid for the home was $2,750.

According to the testimony of the wife, she continued to make monthly payments on the note for the deferred payment of the purchase price, which bore 8 per cent. interest, until some time in April, 1920, when there was a balance due of $1,539. Her husband gave her a check for this amount and told her to finish paying for the house. According to her testimony, the title to the property was taken in her name because her husband wished to provide a home for her and because her children were helping to support the family. Her husband had some insurance for the benefit of his children of a former marriage, and for that reason thought he ought to put the title to the home in his wife's name. The testimony of the wife in this respect is corroborated by that of her daughter.

According to the husband, it was understood at the time the home was purchased that he was to have an interest in it, and he made the monthly payments after the payment of the first $1,000 and then gave his wife the check for $1,539 to finish paying for their home with the understanding that he was to have an interest in the property. Other evidence will be stated and discussed in the opinion.

The chancellor denied the divorce to both parties, and their respective complaints were dismissed for want of equity. The chancellor further found that the husband paid $1,539 towards the purchase price of their home with the understanding that he should have a joint interest in the property with his wife. It was further decreed that he have a lien on the homestead for the sum of $1,539, taking effect on the 1st day of April, 1920, and that the sum draw interest at 6 per cent. from that date. The plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.

Holland & Holland, of Ft. Smith, and E. D. Chastain, of Van Buren, for appellant.

Roy Gean, of Ft. Smith, for appellee.

HART, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

On the question of the divorce, we do not deem it necessary to make an extended statement of the evidence or to discuss it in detail. Each party sought a divorce from the other on the statutory ground of indignities to the person. The parties to the action were married in September, 1918, and lived together as husband and wife until the 1st of April, 1926. The record shows that they got along very well together until about two years before their separation. The testimony of the plaintiff and of the defendant shows that they were continually quarreling with each other for the past year or two of their married life. Their testimony, however, is in irreconcilable conflict as to who was to blame for their quarrels.

According to the testimony of the wife, her husband was continually quarreling with her and on one occasion threatened to strike her and on another occasion told her that he had been advised that he could obtain alimony from her and was...