Fulford v. Fulford
| Decision Date | 02 April 1928 |
| Parties | FULFORD v. FULFORD. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals, on Appeal from Chancery Court, Shelby County; M. C. Ketchum, Chancellor.
Bill for divorce by Minniebelle Fulford against James A. Fulford. The chancellor's decree dismissing the bill was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and complainant's petition for certiorari was granted. Decree affirmed without prejudice.
Brown & Waldauer and C. L. Glascock, all of Memphis, for plaintiff.
William G. Hall, of Memphis, for defendant.
In this case the complainant's bill for divorce was dismissed by the chancellor, and the chancellor's decree was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The case has been heard before us on petition for certiorari granted.
The complainant charged, in substance, that defendant had abandoned her and refused or neglected to provide for her. Thompson's-Shannon's Code, § 4202, subsec. 3. The bill alleged that her husband abandoned her in New Orleans, that he had contributed nothing to her support for a period of about two years, and that she removed to Memphis, where she had been living for two years before suit and where she had supported herself entirely.
She testified to facts tending to show abandonment and refusal or neglect to provide as charged. Her testimony as to abandonment was not, however, corroborated by any evidence, circumstantial or direct, on the hearing below. Publication was made for the defendant and a pro confesso taken against him. Both the chancellor and the Court of Appeals were of opinion that a divorce should not be granted under the circumstances appearing upon the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. The propriety of this conclusion is the only question raised upon the petition for certiorari.
Upon consideration of the matter, we are of opinion that the conclusion reached was correct. Such is the weight of authority. In many jurisdictions there is a statute so declaring the law. Where there is no statute, the courts generally adhere to this rule.
It is thought that a different practice would encourage collusion. Section 4212, Thompson's-Shannon's Code, requires that, notwithstanding a divorce bill be taken for confessed, "the court shall, nevertheless, before decreeing a divorce, hear proof of the facts aforesaid, and then either dismiss the bill or grant a divorce, as the justice of the case may require."
See 10 C. J. 133; 9 R. C. L. 435; note 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 45; and note ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pate v Pate
...recognize that circumstances can arise that make providing corroborating evidence difficult if not impossible. Fulford v. Fulford, 156 Tenn. 640, 642, 4 S.W.2d 350, 350-51 (1928). The public is generally not privy to the private indignities couples in a dysfunctional marriage visit on each ......
-
Dukes v. Dukes
...may require. (Code 1858, § 2459 (deriv. Acts 1835--1836, ch. 26, § 6); Shan., § 4212; mod. Code 1932, § 8437.)' In Fulford v. Fulford, 156 Tenn. 640, 4 S.W.2d 350 (1928), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a divorce suit for lack of corroboration of complainant's testimony, however......
-
Edwards v. Edwards
...Patricia. In that aspect of the case, we think the situation is controlled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Fulford v. Fulford, 156 Tenn. 640, 4 S.W.2d 350, which holds that a divorce should not be granted in the absence of corroborating testimony, where it is reasonably practical to......
-
Rutledge v. Rutledge
... ... Fulford v. Fulford, 156 Tenn. 640 [4 S.W.2d 350] ... 'While the defendant does not ask that the marriage be dissolved by divorce he does seek to destroy ... ...