McCraney v. McCraney, 37360
| Decision Date | 23 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 37360,37360 |
| Citation | 208 Miss. 105,43 So.2d 872 |
| Parties | McCRANEY v. McCRANEY. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Edwin J. Bogen, Greenville, Z. B. Price, Greenville, W. L. McIlwain, Greenville, for appellant.
Wynn, Fafter, Lake & Tindall, Greenville, for appellee.
This is a suit for divorce and alimony brought by the appellee Lee Ethel McCraney against her husband, the appellant Percy McCraney, charging (1) that shortly after their marriage he became violently abusive and on numerous occasions cursed and abused her, and that she was threatened by him with physical violence and placed in fear of losing her life; and (2) that the husband had been guilty of repeated acts of adultery with a woman by the name of Willie May Collins, who resided immediately to the rear of the McCraney home.
The decree appealed from recites that the allegations in the complaint 'are true and are sustained by the evidence', and awards a divorce to the wife as complainant.
The decree then provides 'that the complainant, Lee Ethel McCraney, shall have by way of alimony the fee simple title to the property described in the original bill (which had been occupied by the parties as a home) * * * and that this decree shall operate as a conveyance to her of a fee simple title to the said property'.
Without regard to whether or not the proof was sufficient to sustain either of the grounds for divorce stated, we know of no authority for a court to divest the husband of the title to his property and to vest the title in the wife by judicial fiat or decree. In a proper case the court could have awarded alimony payable in a lump sum or in monthly installments, dependent upon the circumstances of the parties, and could have fixed a lien for the payment thereof against the property of the husband with the right on his part to discharge such lien and retain his property, or the court could have ordered the property sold under execution after default in the payment of the alimony under a decree fixing the same in some definite amount in a lump sum or in monthly installments.
The charge that the husband on numerous occasions cursed and abused the wife and threatened her with physical violence and death is wholly unsupported by proof sufficient to show that he was habitually guilty of any such alleged conduct.
The testimony of the wife is that throughout one week of their married life her husband had made threats against her and told her that she had 'better be praying'; that during said week they heard a knock at the door one night and that the husband loaded his gun and followed the wife to the door, and that when she opened the door it developed that the caller was not the person whom the husband thought was doing the knocking, and that when the wife opened the door she said, . It is undisputed that when Percy saw who the caller was he immediately returned the gun to its proper place in the house. The caller, Jerome, testified as a witness for the wife, but said that Percy did not have the gun drawn, nor did he otherwise corroborate the wife in her theory that she had reason to fear for her life on that occasion.
On the other hand, the husband testified that he had been taking a bath, was not dressed, and that his wife got the gun for him while he was getting the shells and that he merely asked her to go to the door.
The wife testified that on another occasion during their married life her husband choked her. But she was not corroborated by any other witness as to any habitually cruel and inhuman treatment, and a witness for the husband testified that the wife admitted to him in the presence of her husband that he had never fought her, and that the wife said to her husband on that occasion: 'If...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retzer v. Retzer
...Brabham v. Brabham, 226 Miss. 165, 84 So.2d 147 (1955); Windham v. Windham, 218 Miss. 547, 67 So.2d 467 (1953); McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 43 So.2d 872 (1950); Grego v. Grego, 78 Miss. 443, 28 So. 817 On the other hand, we have long since recognized the discretionary authority of ......
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 92-CA-00058
...547, 554, 67 So.2d 467, 472 (1953) (chancery court did not have authority to transfer title to real estate); McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 107, 43 So.2d 872, 873 (1950) (same). See also Jones v. Jones, 532 So.2d 574, 582 (Miss.1988) (Prather, J., concurring).2 The persistent attempts......
-
Tilley v. Tilley
...or both, dependent upon the circumstances of the parties. Miller v. Miller, 173 Miss. 44, 159 So. 112 (1935); McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 43 So.2d 872 (1950); .J.W. Bunkley & W.E. Morse, Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi (1957) Sec. 6.06. This Court has long recognized ......
-
Dill v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No. 1999-CA-01130-SCT.
...a separate criminal cause of action may be maintained based on adultery. Miss.Code Ann. § 97-29-1 (2000); McCraney v. McCraney, 208 Miss. 105, 43 So.2d 872, 875 (1950). ¶ 47. Ultimately, contrary to the majority's assertion, this case does involve a claim of a fraudulent action against an i......