Langford v. Langford
| Decision Date | 24 November 1967 |
| Citation | 421 S.W.2d 632,24 McCanless 600,220 Tenn. 600 |
| Parties | , 220 Tenn. 600 Lannie Eston LANGFORD, Appellant, v. Beulah Elizabeth LANDFORD, Appellee. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Roberts & Roberts, Livingston, and Langford & Langford, Cookeville, for appellant.
Millard V. Oakley, Livingston, for appellee.
This case comes to this court from the Chancery Court of Overton County having been disposed of by the Chancellor upon demurrer. The controversy arises out of a divorce action and in this opinion Lannie Eston Langford will be referred to as 'husband' and Beulah Elizabeth Langford as 'wife.'
The facts necessary to note are as follows: The General Sessions Court of Overton County has concurrent jurisdiction with circuit and chancery courts inall matters circuit and chancery courts in all matters original bill in this General Sessions Court seeking an absolute divorce and approval of a property settlement entered into by the husband and wife. The wife filed an answer and cross-bill seeking a divorce only from bed and board and, alleging the property settlement was inequitable, prayed for a just distribution of the property. Upon the hearing the trial judge, being of the opinion justice demanded the parties have an absolute divorce, sustained the husband's bill insofar as it sought an absolute divorce. The trial judge, being of the opinion the property settlement did not do substantial justice to the parties, ordered all the property, real and personal, be equally divided between the parties. To effect this end a one half undivided interest in certain property, real and personal, owned by the husband was divested out of the husband and vested in the wife; also a one half undivided interest in certain real estate was vested out of the wife and vested in the husband. No appeal was ever perfected from this decree.
The wife, claiming title to a one half undivided interest in the property upon a final decree in the General Sessions Court, filed a partition suit in the chancery court. The husband, in answer to the partition suit, alleged the General Sessions Court, having granted a divorce upon the husband's bill, was without jurisdiction to divest property, or any interest therein, out of him and vest same in the wife; and this decree insofar as it attempt to do so is void. In support of this position the husband cites Brown v. Brown, 198 Tenn. 600, 281 S.W.2d 492 (1955). We agree under the Brown case when a court awards the husband a divorce the court has no jurisdiction to award the wife alimony; but this is not controlling in the case at bar.
The General Sessions Court of Overton County, having been given concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit and chancery courts in matters relating to divorce, is, when acting in this area of the law, a court of general jurisdiction. We would then presume this Court of General Sessions took every preliminary step necessary to the validity of this decree. The General...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Cohen
...v. Howard, 780 S.W.2d 769, 774 (Tenn.App.1989) (citing Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tenn.1979) & Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634 (1967)). ...
-
Edmisten v. Edmisten
...each case, and the determination of whether property is jointly or separately held depends upon the circumstances. Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634. Whether an asset is separate property or marital property is a question of fact. Cutsinger, 917 S.W.2d at 241; Sherril......
-
Gunter v. U. C.H.R.a. & Poore
...to divorce" and, therefore, was "when acting in this area of the law, a court of general jurisdiction." Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 603, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634 (1967). The Rains court then Section 1 Article 6 of the Constitution of Tennessee, and the many cases annotated thereunder in......
-
Mondelli v. Howard
...state of its record title, but on the conduct of the parties. Jones v. Jones, 597 S.W.2d 886, 887 (Tenn.1979); Langford v. Langford, 220 Tenn. 600, 604, 421 S.W.2d 632, 634 (1967). The parties used Mrs. Howard's separate funds as well as their joint funds to pay Mr. Howard's mother for his ......