Greer v. Greer
| Decision Date | 07 December 1936 |
| Docket Number | 4-4458 |
| Citation | 99 S.W.2d 248,193 Ark. 301 |
| Parties | GREER v. GREER |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson Chancery Court; Harvey R. Lucas, Chancellor affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
Rowell Rowell & Dickey, for appellant.
E. D Dupree, Jr., for appellee.
Appellee sued appellant for divorce on the grounds of general indignities such as to render her condition in life intolerable. They separated in the latter part of November or early part of December, 1934, after a marriage of practically twelve years. The action was instituted in the Jefferson chancery court, where the appellee was living with her brother, on December 18, 1934, and there was a prayer for the custody of their infant daughter about five years of age. Appellant defended the action on the ground that the allegations of the complaint were not true. He further answered that since the institution of this suit, to-wit: On December 18, 1934, all grievances, if any, and all domestic difficulties, if any, between appellant and appellee, were condoned by virtue of the fact that after the events complained of, appellee and appellant had lived together as man and wife. He asserted his willingness to provide a home for his wife and child, but stated that if she refused to return to his home, he should be granted the custody of his child. Trial resulted in a decree for appellee awarding her an absolute divorce and giving her the custody of said child with certain exceptions. To reverse that decree, this appeal is prosecuted.
Three grounds are urged upon us for a reversal of the decree of divorce, as follows: 1. Insufficiency of the evidence of the appellee; 2. Lack of corroboration; 3. Condonation.
1. As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the chancellor's finding, it may be stated at the outset that the same rule applies in a divorce action as in other chancery actions, that the findings of fact by a chancellor will not be disturbed by this court unless such finding is against the preponderance of the evidence. Adams v. Adams, 177 Ark. 374, 6 S.W.2d 290. There is a long record before us containing more than 350 pages, and a number of witnesses testified on each side of this case. We think it would serve no useful purpose to detail this testimony. It is a record of bickering, nagging and dictatorial actions on the part of appellant towards his wife. The evidence on behalf of appellee, which must have been accepted by the chancellor as true, reflects that appellant undertook to mold appellee into the kind of woman he wanted her to be, instead of the kind of woman she was and wanted to be. There is no charge and no proof of any immoral conduct on behalf of either party, in fact both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weber v. Weber
...man and wife after a separation was not due to a reconciliation but for the purpose of obtaining the custody of her child. Greer v. Greer, 193 Ark. 301, 99 S.W.2d 248. If the testimony of Mrs. Weber is believed, and it is obvious the chancellor did believe it, we would not be justified in r......
-
Neal v. Neal
...decree will not be reversed on disputed facts decree the findings are against the preponderance of the evidence. Greer v. Greer, 193 Ark. 301, 99 S.W.2d 248 (1936). A compelling reason for this well settled rule is the fact that the chancellor is in a better position to evaluate the testimo......
- Townsend v. Caple
-
Sowards v. Sowards, 5--4421
...on appeal, we will not disturb the findings of the chancellor unless they are against the preponderance of the evidence. (Greer v. Greer, 193 Ark. 301, 99 S.W.2d 248; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 227 Ark. 1063, 303 S.W.2d 576, 577.) On reviewing the evidence, we are also in accord with a quote......