Cruse v. Cruse
| Decision Date | 27 October 1947 |
| Docket Number | 36572. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | CRUSE v. CRUSE. |
Jas. A. Finley, of Tupelo, for appellant.
Byrd P. Mauldin, of Pontotoc, for appellee.
Appellant filed suit for divorce against the appellee in the Chancery Court of Lee County, averring that both parties were adult residents of that County.
Appellee without answering, filed a motion to transfer the cause to Pontotoc County, on the ground of her alleged residence and citizenship here, which motion was sustained by the Chancellor because of Section 1441, Code 1942. This section provides:
'Where an action is brought in any circuit, chancery, county, or justice of the peace court of this state, of which the court in which it is brought has jurisdiction of the subject matter, but lacks venue jurisdiction, such action shall not be dismissed because of such lack of proper venue, but on objection on the part of the defendant shall, by the court be transferred to the venue to which it belongs.'
Proof was heard by the Chancellor on the motion, at the conclusion of which, on conflicting testimony, he held, as he said in his opinion in the record: 'The facts in this case establish without a doubt in the mind of this Court that at the time of the separation of these parties they were residents of Pontotoc County where the defendant still resides.' In our judgment, the Chancellor here was amply justified by the proof, in so holding. From the decree on the sustaining of the motion, and transfer of the cause to Pontotoc County, appellant brings this case here, and assigns such action of the Chancery Court as the sole error.
This case, on the issue of transfer or not, is controlled by our recent decision, not yet published in State reports Price v. Price, 32 So.2d 124. We there held that Section 2738, Code 1942, was mandatory, and there required affirmation of the Chancellor's dismissal of the Bill of Complaint for divorce, since it was not filed in the proper county. We further there announced our opinion that Section 1441, Code 1942, had no application in or to the particular subject of divorce. So, had defendant moved the court to dismiss the original bill, instead of moving to transfer the cause, we would have sustained a decree to that effect. However, the motion was merely to transfer the cause, which was beyond the authority of the court to do, and hence error was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...bill for divorce must be dismissed, not transferred. Price v. Price, 202 Miss. 268, 274, 32 So.2d 124, 126 (1947); Cruse v. Cruse, 202 Miss. 497, 500, 32 So.2d 355, 355 (1947) (emphasis added). If the court is without jurisdiction—subject matter or personal—no one is bound by anything the c......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
...a bill for divorce must be dismissed, not transferred. Price v. Price, 202 Miss. 268, 274, 32 So. 2d 124, 126; Cruse v. Cruse, 202 Miss. 497, 500, 32 So. 2d 355, 355 (emphasis added). If the court is without jurisdiction—subject matter or personal—no one is bound by anything the court may s......
-
National Heritage Realty v. Estate of Boles
...be dismissed, not transferred to the correct county. Slaughter, 869 So.2d at 391. See also Price, 32 So.2d at 126; Cruse v. Cruse, 202 Miss. 497, 500, 32 So.2d 355, 355 (1947). "However, this Court has held that if a court that [sic] has no subject matter jurisdiction in a case the judgment......
-
Lewis v. Pagel, 2016–CA–00192–SCT
...could not be waived as it vested subject-matter jurisdiction over divorce actions in the chancery courts. See Cruse v. Cruse , 202 Miss. 497, 499, 32 So.2d 355, 355 (1947) (applying Section 2738); Price v. Price , 202 Miss. 268, 272, 32 So.2d 124, 125 (1947) (applying Section 2738); Carter ......