De Marco v. De Marco
| Decision Date | 14 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | 35940. |
| Citation | 199 Miss. 165,24 So.2d 358 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | DE MARCO v. DE MARCO. |
Engle & Laub, of Natchez, and W. E. Gore, of Jackson, for appellant.
Jos E. Brown, for Natchez, for appellee.
At the July term, 1940, of the Chancery Court of Adams County appellee obtained a divorce from appellant and an award of alimony of $75 per month, payable on the 1st and 15th day of each month thereafter 'until Mollie Aubrey De Marco, the youngest of the children of complainant and defendant, shall become twenty-one years of age; and that upon Mollie Aubrey De Marco becoming twenty-one years of age; the matter of alimony and support shall be then resubmitted to this court for readjustment.'
On October 14, 1944, Mollie Aubrey De Marco became twenty-one years of age, and subsequently appellant, without any order of the court or resubmission of the question arbitrarily reduced the semimonthly payments to $18.75, which was one-half of the amount originally awarded appellee.
Appellee, on the 18th day of December, 1944, filed a petition by which she resubmitted the question of alimony to the chancery court for readjustment. Appellant answered the petition of appellee, pleading certain matters in justification of his reduction in the payment of the prior award of alimony, having to do mainly with his and appellee's financial resources and obligations. Among other defenses offered by appellant, he averred the following: 'Respondent admits that his earnings since July, 1940, have somewhat increased, but shows unto the court that his obligations and expenses have likewise increased; and that in June, 1941, he remarried, and since that time has a wife to support, who under the law is entitled to support and maintenance and whose position in equity and in right comes prior to the claims of complainant.'
The case was heard by the chancellor on testimony by and on behalf of both parties and at the conclusion thereof final decree was entered 'That the sum of $65.00 a month is a fair, reasonable, equitable and just sum and amount to be now and henceforth paid by the defendant unto the complainant, Mrs. Camille De Marco, by way of permanent alimony.' And an award was made to appellee accordingly by said decree, from which appellant appealed, and assigned as error the entering of said decree under the proof made at the trial of this case.
In Lee v. Lee, 182 Miss....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. James, 97-CA-00242 COA
...should have been reduced more substantially because he now has a small child by his second wife. In De Marco v. De Marco, 199 Miss. 165, 168, 24 So.2d 358, 359 (Miss.1946), the husband began to pay his former wife only one-half of the monthly alimony which the chancery court originally orde......
-
Dixon v. Dixon
...may then consider and rely on the deposition testimony "as substantive evidence").10 See, e.g. , De Marco v. De Marco , 199 Miss. 165, 168, 24 So.2d 358, 359 (Miss. 1946) (holding that alimony generally "takes precedence over" "obligations imposed ... by a second marriage"); Rushing v. Rush......
- Adams v. State
-
Tanner v. Tanner, 56584
...weight of the evidence." This same standard was applied by this Court as to the modification of an alimony decree in DeMarco v. DeMarco, 199 Miss. 165, 24 So.2d 358 (1946). In DeMarco this Court derived a principle from an earlier case, Lee v. Lee, 182 Miss. 684, 181 So. 912 (1938): "the ch......