Hodge v. Hodge, 43977
| Decision Date | 16 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43977,43977 |
| Citation | 186 So.2d 748 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | Dovie Mae HODGE, Complainant-Appellant, v. Walton Q. HODGE, Defendant-Appellee. |
Walker, Dillard & Sullivan, Laurel, for appellant.
Gartin, Hester & Pickering, Laurel, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Jones County, wherein the complainant, Dovie Mae Hodge, sought a divorce from her husband, the custody of their three children, support for herself and children, the use and occupancy of the family home, certain personal property, and attorney's fees. The defendant denied the allegations of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment alleged against him in the bill of complaint for a divorce, denied that the complainant was entitled to any relief whatsoever, and filed a cross bill for a divorce and custody of the children, charging the complainant with adultery.
After hearing, the cause was taken under advisement during the February, 1964 term for a final decree to be had at the October 1964 term of the court, and the cause was continued for all intervening terms. The cause was continued at the later term and a final decree entered during the February 1965 term.
The relief sought by the complainant was denied and her bill of complaint was dismissed, as was the cross bill of the husband and defendant. However, the custody of the children, Barbara Ann Hodge, born in 1952, Walton Allen Hodge, born in 1955, and Larry Dale Hodge, born in 1961, was awarded to their father subject to the mother's having their custody and control each week from nine o'clock a.m. on Saturday until four o'clock p.m. on Sunday, with the provision that the complainant take the children to church each Sunday. No award of attorney's fees was made.
From this decree the complainant appeals, assigning as error the following:
(1) The action of the court in taking the cause under advisement for four terms;
(2) That the decree is contrary to the law and the weight of the evidence;
(3) The refusal of the court to permit the complainant to testify to acts which occurred subsequent to the separation (4) The failure of the court to sustain the demurrer and special demurrer to the cross bill;
(5) The failure of the court in not allowing an attorney's fee;
(6) The court's failure to apply the 'tender age' rule by awarding the custody of the children to their father; and
(7) The court's order directing appellant to take the children to church each Sunday.
The defendant and cross-appellant assigns as error the failure of the court to grant a divorce to him, and the granting of the custody of the children to their mother each week from nine o'clock a.m. on Saturday to four o'clock p.m. on Sunday.
We are of the opinion the court did not err in taking the cause under advisement from one term to a subsequent term and that the cases cited by the appellant in this regard, Natis v. Jackson, 205 Miss. 490, 38 So.2d 925 (1949) and Union Motor Car Co. v. Cartledge, Sheriff, 133 Miss. 318, 97 So. 801 (1923), are not in point, as the legal questions there presented were the entries of final decrees in vacation as contrasted to a decree, as here, during the regular term. Though the questioned decree is unorthodox in that the cause was taken under advisement for a decree to be entered at a specific term in the future, there being two intervening terms, we are of the opinion this was not of itself erroneous and certainly was not reversible error. The chancellor has within his discretion the authority to take a cause under advisement for consideration to the end that an appropriate decree might be entered. Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice § 594 at 628, 629 (2d ed.1950). We cannot say that there was an abuse of this discretion on the part of the trial judge in taking this cause under advisement for the period stated. However, prolonged periods of advisement by a judge should be avoided, and particularly so when the custody of children of tender age is an issue before the court.
We have considered the entirety of the record and after doing so, are of the opinion that the appellant's assignment of error, that the decree is contrary to the law and overwhelming weight of the evidence, is not well taken as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waller v. Waller
...Thompson v. Foster, 244 So.2d 395, 396 (Miss.1971) (quoting Anderson v. Watkins, 208 So.2d 573, 575 (Miss.1968)). See also Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965). Any order for joint custody may be modified upon the showing of a mat......
-
Anderson v. Watkins
...1942 Ann. § 2743 (1956); Miss.Code1942 Ann. § 1263.5 (Supp.1966); Grace v. Cummings, 253 Miss. 794, 179 So.2d 836 (1965); Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966). The fact that a mother was not originally given custody of her children in divorce proceedings because of infidelity to her hu......
-
Schlieve v. Schlieve
...each week, it was not appropriate for a court to mandatorily require that the children be taken to church each Sunday: In Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748, 750 (Miss.1966), this Court addressed a provision almost identical to the one in the present case. There the chancellor awarded custody to......
-
Buntyn v. Smallwood, 53070
...Bland v. Stoudemire, 219 Miss. 526, 69 So.2d 225 (1954); Dickerson v. Dickerson, 245 Miss. 370, 148 So.2d 510 (1963); and Hodge v. Hodge, 186 So.2d 748 (Miss.1966), the best interest of the child is paramount in the consideration of the Court. Moreover, this Court has continuously held that......