Hughes v. Hughes, No. 39178

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtARRINGTON; McGEHEE
Citation72 So.2d 677,221 Miss. 264
Docket NumberNo. 39178
Decision Date17 May 1954
PartiesHUGHES v. HUGHES.

Page 677

72 So.2d 677
221 Miss. 264
HUGHES

v.
HUGHES.
No. 39178.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
May 17, 1954.

[221 Miss. 265] W. C. Sweat, Sr. & Jr., Corinth, for appellant.

Cary Stovall, James E. Price, Jr., Corinth, for appellee.

[221 Miss. 266] ARRINGTON, Justice.

Mrs. Elizabeth Simpson Hughes, appellant herein, was granted a divorce from Frank K. Hughes, appellee, in the Chancery Court of Alcorn County, Mississippi, on September 11, 1951. They had no children, and prior to the divorce appellant and appellee entered into a written agreement in which appellee agreed to convey to her their home, pay off the mortgage on same, and to pay her $200 per month alimony. This agreement was incorporated in the final decree and the court ordered appellee to pay within a reasonable time the balance due on the note to the National Bank of Commerce, secured by trust deed on the property described in the decree, and which appellee had deeded to appellant as agreed, and to pay appellant $200 per month 'until further orders of the court.'

On June 2, 1953, appellee filed a petition asking the court to modify the decree, alleging that the circumstances of the parties had materially changed in that petitioner had practically no income and defendant, appellant, had a very substantial income, and that he was unable to continue paying the alimony as ordered by the decree. Upon the hearing of the matter, the court entered a decree reducing the amount to be paid by appellee to appellant each month from $200 to 100 until further orders of the court, and appellee was directed to report back to the court his income and financial condition[221 Miss. 267] at the March, 1954 term, the court reserving the right to enter any further orders at such time. From this decree, the appellant appeals.

The appellant argues that the court was without authority to modify the former decree, her contention being that the agreement entered into between the parties was a binding contract and not subject to change. We find no merit in this contention. Section 2743, Mississippi Code of 1942, provides as follows:

'When a divorce shall be decreed from the bonds of matrimony, the court may, in its discretion, having regard to the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case, as may seem equitable and just, make all orders * * * touching the maintenance and alimony of the wife, or any allowance to be made to her, and may, if need be, require sureties for the payment of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • East v. East, No. 55514
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 13, 1986
    ...392 So.2d 1145 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610 (Miss.1980); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954). On the other hand we have historically recognized that alimony awarded in a lump sum, or in gross constitutes a fixed liabi......
  • Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, No. 41969
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 16, 1961
    ...the parties could agree to the form thereof. This Court has held that an agreed decree could be modified by the court. Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677. In this case, however,[242 Miss. 234] the original decree was obtained by Dr. Rubisoff, and his bill for divorce sets out the......
  • Hollis v. Baker, No. 2011–CA–00799–COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • February 12, 2013
    ...agreement. See Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145, 1146–47 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610, 613 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 268, 72 So.2d 677, 678 (1954). Additionally, it is accepted that there are other provisions of a property-settlement agreement that are not ......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, No. 52031
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 21, 1981
    ...subsequent to entry of the decree because of public policy. See Keller v. Keller, 230 So.2d 808 (Miss.1970); and Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954), wherein the court approved that stated in Bunkley & Morse's Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, Section 209 (now Se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • East v. East, No. 55514
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 13, 1986
    ...392 So.2d 1145 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610 (Miss.1980); McKee v. McKee, 382 So.2d 287 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954). On the other hand we have historically recognized that alimony awarded in a lump sum, or in gross constitutes a fixed liabi......
  • Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, No. 41969
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 16, 1961
    ...the parties could agree to the form thereof. This Court has held that an agreed decree could be modified by the court. Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677. In this case, however,[242 Miss. 234] the original decree was obtained by Dr. Rubisoff, and his bill for divorce sets out the......
  • Hollis v. Baker, No. 2011–CA–00799–COA.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • February 12, 2013
    ...agreement. See Taylor v. Taylor, 392 So.2d 1145, 1146–47 (Miss.1981); Stone v. Stone, 385 So.2d 610, 613 (Miss.1980); Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 268, 72 So.2d 677, 678 (1954). Additionally, it is accepted that there are other provisions of a property-settlement agreement that are not ......
  • Taylor v. Taylor, No. 52031
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • January 21, 1981
    ...subsequent to entry of the decree because of public policy. See Keller v. Keller, 230 So.2d 808 (Miss.1970); and Hughes v. Hughes, 221 Miss. 264, 72 So.2d 677 (1954), wherein the court approved that stated in Bunkley & Morse's Amis, Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, Section 209 (now Se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT