Keyes v. Keyes, 43281

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Citation252 Miss. 138,171 So.2d 489
Docket NumberNo. 43281,43281
Parties, 32 A.L.R.3d 1222 Mrs. Mignonne KEYES v. Harvey W. KEYES.
Decision Date01 February 1965

Maxey & Clark, Laurel, for appellant.

McFarland & McFarland, Bay Springs, O. B. Triplett, Jr., Forest, for appellee.

INZER, Justice.

The appellee, Harvey W. Keyes, brought this suit in the Chancery Court of Scott County against his wife, Mignonne Keyes, appellant, whereby he sought a divorce from her on the ground of adultery. He asked also that he be awarded the custody of the two children of the parties. These children are a body, eight years of age, and a girl, now about five years of age.

The appellant answered the bill of complaint and denied that she was guilty of the charge of adultery, and by a cross bill she sought a divorce from her husband on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. She asked also for the custody of the two children, support for the children exclusive use of the home and its furnishings, alimony for herself, a division of the property belonging to the appellee as lump-sum alimony, attorneys' fees, and general relief.

The chancellor heard the testimony and made detailed findings of fact. He found among other things that this was the second marriage between the parties. The first marriage had been dissolved by a decree of the Chancery Court of Hinds County rendered on December 8, 1952 whereby Mr. Keyes was granted a divorce from his wife on the ground of adultery. The parties were remarried on April 25, 1953 and lived together until August 10, 1963, at which time Mr. Keyes left his wife. The chancellor further found that the appellant had been guilty of adultery with B. F. Lee, a bachelor, who lived alone in his home in the city of Jackson, Mississippi. Upon this finding a decree was entered granting appellee a divorce and awarding him the custody of the two children. The cross bill was dismissed thereby denying the appellant alimony. From this decree appellant has appealed to this Court.

Appellant contends that the chancellor was in error in that he was manifestly wrong and prejudicial in (1) finding that the appellant was guilty of adultery and awarding the appellee a divorce on that ground; (2) finding that appellant was an unfit mother and awarding the appellee custody of the children; (3) denying the appellee permanent alimony; and (4) finding that the appellant was not entitled to any of the property jointly owned by the parties.

In regard to the divorce issue the evidence is circumstantial as to the acts of adultery, but the evidence is clear and strong and leads to the conclusion that the acts were committed. The appellant contends that the evidence does not show that the man involved was of an adulterious disposition. The testimony shows that the appellant visited this man in his home where he lived alone on the average of once or twice a month for a period of over two years. These visits were made both at night and in the daytime. At times her car would be parked at his home the next morning after she had come there the night before. The fact that this man allowed or had the appellant visit him under these circumstances certainly establishes that a mutual infatuation existed between the parties, and there was ample opportunity for them to commit the acts charged. We are of the opinion that the chancellor was justified in finding that the appellant was guilty of adultery. Bunkley and Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi Sec. 3.09(5) (1957)

The second and third assignments of error will be discussed together since they are governed by the same rule of law. We said in the case of Winfield v. Winfield, 203 Miss. 391, 25 So.2d 443 (1948), that '[w]hen a divorce has been properly granted because of the adultery of the wife, she is not entitled either to alimony or to the custody of the children, * * *.' 203 Miss. at 395, 35 So.2d at 444. We are of the opinion that the chancellor was correct in finding from the evidence that the appellant was an unfit mother and that it was to the best interest of the children that their custody be awarded to the appellee. The chancellor was likewise correct in denying appellant permanent alimony. McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 43 So.2d 872 (1950); Hulett v. Hulett, 152 Miss. 476, 119 So. 581 (1928).

The final contention of the appellant is that the court was in error in denying her any of the property jointly owned by the parties. The chancellor did not make any specific finding as to the nature and character of the property owned by the parties. This was probably due to the fact that the cross bi...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Retzer v. Retzer
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 12, 1990
    ...alimony, period. Hodum v. Crumpton, 329 So.2d 667, 668 (Miss.1976); King v. King, 191 So.2d 409, 411 (Miss.1966); Keyes v. Keyes, 252 Miss. 138, 144, 171 So.2d 489, 490 (1965). See, Winfield v. Winfield, 203 Miss. 391, 402, 35 So.2d 443, 447 (1948); Hulett v. Hulett, 152 Miss. 476, 119 So. ......
  • Brown v. Hewlett
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • March 12, 2019
    ...fee). It was simply that "[t]he rule of this Court is to allow one-half of the amount awarded by the trial court." Keyes v. Keyes , 252 Miss. 138, 145, 171 So.2d 489, 491 (1965) ;8 Kyzar v. Kyzar , 248 Miss. 59, 64, 157 So.2d 770, 772 (1963) (granting $ 125 for appellate fees, half of the $......
  • Anderson v. Watkins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 25, 1968
    ...statement that this has been the holding of this Court. Winfield v. Winfield, 203 Miss. 391, 35 So.2d 443 (1948); Keyes v. Keyes, 252 Miss. 138, 171 So.2d 489 (1965); Hulett v. Hulett, 152 Miss. 476, 119 So. 581 (1929); Cox v. Cox, 183 So.2d 921 (Miss.1966); Duncan v. Duncan, 119 Miss. 271,......
  • Owens v. Owens, 7515DC820
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 17, 1976
    ...of adultery was held to be sufficient though there was no evidence of inclination or adulterous disposition. See Keyes v. Keyes, 252 Miss. 138, 171 So.2d 489 (1965); Poole v. Poole (La.App.), 189 So.2d 75 (1966). An examination of the cases in North Carolina, both civil and criminal, reveal......
  • 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