Lanham v. Lanham
| Citation | 194 Miss. 872,14 So.2d 215 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35406. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Parties | LANHAM v. LANHAM. |
Dan C. Brewer and W. B. Miller, both of Clarksdale, for appellant.
Holcomb & Curtis and W. W. Venable, all of Clarksdale, for appellee.
Appellant and appellee were man and wife. The wife filed a bill against her husband in the Chancery Court of Coahoma County for divorce and alimony, temporary and permanent. The ground for divorce was habitual drunkenness and cruel and inhuman treatment. At the return term of the Court a trial was had resulting in a decree for divorce and fixing the wife's alimony.
Approximately two months from the entry of the decree the wife filed a bill in this case, seeking to have the court make radical changes in the first decree. The bill was filed and process was made returnable in vacation and the cause was heard and decree entered in vacation over the husband's objection. The question for decision, and the only question, is whether or not the Chancellor had the right under the law to hear and dispose of the cause in vacation without the consent of the husband. The husband and wife owned a homestead and about one hundred acres of land as tenants in common. In addition the husband owned a one-half interest in the capital stock of the insurance corporation of Boyle & Lanham, and was earning an annual salary of approximately $2,400 for his services as rural mail carrier. He had $15,000 life insurance. The decree as to alimony was agreed on. In substance it provided that the husband should pay the wife monthly $75, and that she should have the use of the home until sold. She was given the custody of their minor children, a son eight years of age and a daughter six years of age, with the right of the father to visit them with the consent of the mother under the latter's supervision, "the children not to be removed from the State without reasonable notice and order of the court"; the husband was to pay all taxes and the mortgage indebtedness on the property owned by them with the right of the wife to rent out the home and have the revenue therefrom until it should be sold or abandoned as a home; the husband was to keep in order and have the revenue and profits from the one hundred acres of land jointly owned by them; he was to keep in force his life insurance of $15,000; and it provided that he should pay the $150 fee of his wife's solicitor. There were other provisions in the decree unnecessary to mention.
In the vacation decree among the material changes made in the original decree were the following: The allowance was increased from $75 to $125 per month while the wife remained in the home and if she removed therefrom he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaffin v. Chaffin
...omissions in the record of what had previously been done, and by mistake or neglect not entered." We distinguish Lanham v. Lanham, 194 Miss. 872, 14 So.2d 215 (1943), on the point that the decree in that case was entered in vacation over appellant's objection. In the case at bar appellant n......
-
Gordon (Marx) v. Gordon
...... regular or special, which in this case was Monday, the first. day of November, 1943. See and compare Lanham v. Lanham,. Miss., 14 So.2d 215. . . When,. therefore, the motion to dissolve came on to be heard on. November 27, 1943, the original ......
- Denkman Lumber Co. v. Henderson