McCormack v. McCormack, 39023
| Decision Date | 03 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 39023,39023 |
| Citation | 72 So.2d 199,220 Miss. 116 |
| Parties | McCORMACK v. McCORMACK. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Ethridge & Minniece, Dunn & Singley, William Neville, Meridian, for appellant.
M. V. B. Miller, Gerald Adams, Meridian, for appellee.
This cause was affirmed on February 15, 1954. A decree was entered in the amount of $2,942.75, which included alimony, attorneys' fees below, interest, damages, and attorneys' fees here--all lawful demands accrued to that time. The suggestion of error was thereafter overruled on March 15.
The motion seeks to correct the mandate so as to include monthly installments of alimony, accruing since the date of the decree, together with interest thereon.
The proper mandate issued. While it did not expressly provide for the payment of interest since the date of rendition of the decree, that follows as a matter of law. Section 39, Code of 1942. Monthly installments of alimony accruing subsequent to the decree here are enforceable by the trial court in conformity to the terms of its decree.
Motion overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arnold v. Arnold
...to the matter of interest. Carter v. McHaney, Tex.Civ.App., 373 S.W.2d 82, 86, and McCormack v. McCormack, 220 Miss. 116, 70 So.2d 333, 72 So.2d 199. So, in the case now before us, any specific monetary award granted plaintiff by the trial court in the original adjudication constituted an e......
-
Rubisoff v. Rubisoff, 41969
...should have been added to the amount of past due payments. See above authorities and McCormack v. McCormack, 220 Miss. 116, 70 So.2d 333, 72 So.2d 199. The chancellor was correct in applying the seven-year statute of limitations in limiting recovery of past due installments. See Sec. 733, M......