Paxton v. Paxton, 45371

Decision Date19 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 45371,45371
PartiesLucille PAXTON v. The V. PAXTON.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

W. M. Conerly, Vicksburg, Roland C. Lewis, Jackson, for appellant.

Dent, Ward, Martin & Terry, Vicksburg, for appellee.

Jean D. Muirhead, Jackson, amicus curiae.

INZER, Justice:

This is an appeal by Mrs. Lucille Paxton from a decree of the Chancery Court of Warren County adjudging her to be in contempt of court for failure to comply with the decree of that court. We reverse and remand.

The record in this case reveals that appellant and appellee were formerly man and wife. They were divorced by a decree of the Chancery Court of Warren County rendered on July 24, 1967. By the terms of that decree Mr. Paxton was granted a divorce and as a result of an agreement between the parties there was incorporated in the decree provisions relative to the custody, support and education of their two children. Appellee was required to pay to appellant $35,000 as lump sum alimony and the decree settled the dispute between the parties as to the ownership of $40,000 in bonds and certain other monies in the possession of appellant. The decree granted to appellant the temporary use of the home, but provided that she would deliver possession of the home to Mr. Paxton on or before October 24, 1967. The decree specifically provided that the property was to be returned in good order and repair and substantially in the same condition as it was at the date of the decree. It was also provided that the title to certain personal property located in the house and on the premises was vested in Mr. Paxton and Mrs. Paxton was directed to deliver the possession of this property to Mr. Paxton.

On January 8, 1968, appellee filed a petition seeking to have appellant adjudged in contempt of court because of her failure and refusal to comply with the decree of the court. It charged that she violated the decree in that she refused to deliver the items of personal property as required by the decree. These items were valued by appellee at $835. It was also charged that when the possession of the house was delivered, it was not in good order and repair, but instead numerous acts of vandalism had been committed on the house and outbuildings and the house had been damaged to the extent it would require over $13,000 to restore it to good repair. It was also charged that appellant or her agents and employees had cut or girdled trees and shrubs within the enclosed yard of the house which trees and shrubs were valued at $1,400. It was also charged that Mrs. Paxton had destroyed other trees outside of the enclosure upon the land belonging to Mr. Paxton for which the statutory penalty should be imposed. The petition asked that Mrs. Paxton be adjudged in contempt of court and committed to jail unless she restored the premises to their condition immediately prior to the date of the decree or to pay to the appellee the sum necessary to restore the premises. It was also requested that appellant be required to deliver the personal property or pay the value.

Appellant answered the petition and denied that she was in contempt of court and as a defense alleged that she had complied with the decree of the chancery court to the best of her ability. After a rather lengthy trial, the court found that appellant was in civil contempt because of her failure to comply with the decree. A decree was entered on May 28, 1968, which adjudicated her to be guilty of civil contempt and ordered her committed to jail until she purged hereself by complying with the terms and provisions of the decree by restoring the home to substantially the same condition as it was on July 27, 1967, but did not fix any amount of damage that she could pay in order to purge herself of contempt. The decree also required her to deliver certain personal property or pay the value thereof and ordered her held in jail until such time as she paid $1,400 as damages for the trees and shrubs destroyed on the premises. From this decree Mrs. Paxton has appealed and Mr. Paxton has cross appealed.

The error assigned in the cross appeal is the failure of the chancellor to fix an amount of damage that Mrs. Paxton could pay to purge herself of contempt. This action on the part of the trial court was error.

On direct appeal it is contended that the evidence is not sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor that the appellant was guilty of contempt. Included in appellant's brief is a plea styled 'Plea and Mitigation of Conviction.' Attached to the petition as an exhibit is the order of the County Court of Warren County dated July 29, 1968, which states that appellant was charged in that court with the offense of carrying a concealed weapon and in the course of investigation it appeared to the court that at the time of the alleged offense appellant was probably insane and was still insane on that date. The order directed the county attorney to sign the necessary petition and affidavit to institute lunacy proceedings. Such proceedings were instituted and an examination was had as required by law and the examining physicians found that the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder described as acute schizophrenia paranoid type and that she was in need of treatment under the supervision and control of a mental institution of the state. Pursuant to that finding a decree of the Chancery Court of Warren County was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • McPhail v. McPhail
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 23, 2023
    ...in the same condition as it was at the date of the decree." Before delivering the property, the ex-wife caused extensive damage to the home. Id. The chancery court held ex-wife in civil contempt and ordered her jailed until she complied with the decree by restoring the home to substantially......
  • Cook v. State, 55292
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 12, 1986
    ...to determine whether on this record Cook is guilty of contempt. Prestwood v. Hambrick, 308 So.2d 82, 84 (Miss.1975); Paxton v. Paxton, 222 So.2d 834 (Miss.1969). We are not bound by the rule ordinarily applicable--that we have no authority to reverse except the chancellor be found manifestl......
  • Robertson v. Murray (In re Murray)
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • January 18, 2023
    ... ... not liable at all" for punitive damages. Paxton v ... Paxton , 222 So.2d 834, 837 (Miss. 1969). Further, Murray ... may properly ... ...
  • Prestwood v. Hambrick, 47829
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 17, 1975
    ...guilty of contempt and this Court may affirm, reverse, annul or modify the sentence or decree or order of the lower court. Paxton v. Paxton,222 So.2d 834 (Miss.1969). Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-11 (1972) provides, in pertinent part, as A person ordered by any tribunal, except ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT