McBroom v. McBroom, 38434
| Decision Date | 19 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38434,38434 |
| Citation | 214 Miss. 360,58 So.2d 831 |
| Parties | McBROOM v. McBROOM. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ernest Bliss, Vicksburg, for appellant.
John W. Prewitt, Vicksburg, for appellee.
Appellant, as complainant in the lower court, filed a bill for divorce against appellee, defendant below, on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Section 2735, Mississippi Code 1942. When complainant rested her case defendant moved for dismissal of the bill on the ground that the evidence had not established the alleged grounds for divorce. The chancellor sustained the motion. The correctness of that ruling is the only question before us.
Defendant offered no evidence; therefore, the testimony for complainant, except where unreasonable, should be accepted as true, with the natural and reasonable inferences therefrom. Complainant and her father testified. Summarized, that evidence discloses that complainant was twenty-one and defendant twenty-three years of age at the time of the trial in September 1951. They were married November 3, 1950. They seem to have gotten along fairly well for about a month. Complainant testified that her husband was over-sexed; that he was insanely jealous; that he wrongfully accused her of going with other men; that there was no truth in this; that he was jealous of her own brother; that he became angry in a theater and struck her; that he was of very high temper; that 'he has come to the house and thrown fits--kicked the post off the porch;' had threatened to kill her; had gotten drunk and remained out all night; and that his conduct greatly humiliated her in public. They separated after two months of married life; she returned to him on his promise to do better, but he became more abusive, and after about two more months they separated again; that he then promised to mend his ways and she returned to him but they then lived together only about a week; that as a result of all of this she became very nervous, was unable to sleep; had to miss her work; that her health was adversely affected.
H. F. McCormack, father of complainant testified. He was captain of police in Vicksburg. He said that the second month of the marriage his daughter came home crying; was extremely nervous because of the actions of her husband; that he was instrumental in getting the parties to try again to live together; that they resided in his home for awhile before they separated the last time; that defendant was working at night; that he drank some; that he would 'come home and sleep a few minutes in the morning, and would jump up and begin to get angry, and cursing around the house, and she was crying, and that went on for a while, and they finally separated again--and we got them back together a third time * * * and that didn't last but a week.' Referring to the defendant, the witness said: 'His disposition is very bad, you just can't do anything with him when he gets in a nervous state.' He said that one night he overheard abusive and vile language being used by defendant towards complainant in another room, and he was forced to invite him to leave. He described the effect upon the complainant in these words: 'Well, she would be in a nervous condition, crying, and you couldn't do...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnett v. Burnett, 46859
...itself.' Bunkley and Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, § 3.14(3), p. 114 (1957). Cited in McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 363, 58 So.2d 831, 832 (1952). See also Taylor v. Taylor, 235 Miss. 239, 247, 108 So.2d 872, 875 (1959); Skelton v. Skelton, 236 Miss. 598, 603, 1......
-
Rosamond v. Rosamond
...(1930); Price v. Price, 181 Miss. 539, 179 So. 855 (1938); Stringer v. Stringer, 209 Miss. 326, 46 So.2d 791 (1950); McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 58 So.2d 831 (1952); Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 Furthermore, the court had a right to observe the witnesses testifyi......
-
Criswell v. Criswell
...Hibner v. Hibner, 217 Miss. 611, 64 So.2d 756 (1953); Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 (1952); McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 58 So.2d 831 (1952); Cummings v. Cummings, 213 Miss. 863, 58 So.2d 39 (1952); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 213 Miss. 9, 56 So. 58 (1952); Smith v. Smith,......
-
Petersen v. Petersen
...and inhuman treatment and therefore entitled the appellee to a divorce. Hibner v. Hibner, 217 Miss. 611, 64 So.2d 756; McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 58 So.2d 831. We therefore find no error in the action of the trial court in granting to the appellee a The appellant further contends th......