Glover v. Glover

• Decision Date: 10 April 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 297.)
• Citation: 240 S.W. 716
• Parties: GLOVER v. GLOVER.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

240 S.W. 716 GLOVER
v.
GLOVER. (No. 297.) Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 10, 1922. Rehearing Denied May 22, 1922.

Page 717

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Jno. E. Martineau, Chancellor.

Action by Lillie H. Glover against E. D. Glover for divorce and division of property. From a part of the decree for plaintiff refusing to award her an interest in property held by defendant in his own name, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Geo. A. McConnell and Lewis Rhoton, both of Little Rock, for appellant.

Price Shofner and Mehaffy, Donham & Mehaffy, all of Little Rock, for appellee.

HUMPHREYS, J.

On the 13th day of September, 1920, appellant instituted suit against her husband (appellee) in the Pulaski chancery court, to dissolve the bonds of matrimony existing between them upon statutory grounds, and for a part of his property, both real and personal, in lieu of her dower interest therein. Appellee filed an answer denying the alleged causes for divorcement, and a cross-bill seeking cancellation of deeds executed by him in the years 1910 and 1916, conveying certain real estate to appellant, alleging that it was conveyed to her in trust, and for an accounting of the proceeds of other lands likewise conveyed to her in the year 1916, but sold by her to innocent purchasers.

Appellant filed an answer to the cross-bill, admitting that deeds were executed by appellee in the years 1910 and 1916, conveying certain real estate to her, but denying that it was conveyed to her in trust. The cause was submitted to the court upon the pleadings and evidence, which resulted in a decree granting appellant a divorce and vesting in her, in lieu of dower in appellee's property, the furniture and jewelry left in her possession when the abandonment occurred and the real estate and proceeds of that part sold by her, which appellee had conveyed to her in the years 1910 and 1916. An appeal has been prosecuted to this court from that part of the decree refusing to endow appellant of an interest in the personal and real property held by appellee in his own name at the time the suit was instituted. As no appeal has been taken from the decree annulling the marriage contract, it is unnecessary to incorporate in this opinion the marital infelicities inducing the separation.

Appellant and appellee lived together for more than 20 years, during which time a large estate was accumulated through their joint efforts. In addition to performing her...