Price v. Price, No. 54197

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAN M. LEE; PATTERSON
Citation430 So.2d 848
PartiesBobby PRICE v. Doris PRICE.
Decision Date27 April 1983
Docket NumberNo. 54197

Page 848

430 So.2d 848
Bobby PRICE
v.
Doris PRICE.
No. 54197.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
April 27, 1983.

David Oliver, Gulfport, for appellant.

No briefs filed by appellee.

Before BROOM, HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, JJ.

Page 849

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from the Chancery Court of Harrison County wherein Bobby Price, appellant, filed his bill of complaint for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences. Doris Price, appellee, answered the bill denying that the chancery court had jurisdiction to render the relief prayed for, denying the general allegations thereof, and also asserting a divorce action between the parties was pending in the 173rd District Court of Henderson County, Texas. Thereafter, Bobby Price moved to amend his bill of complaint, which was overruled. An interlocutory decree was entered accordingly. Bobby Price has appealed to this Court and assigns as error the refusal of his motion to amend his bill of complaint. We reverse.

On April 5, 1982, appellant filed a bill of complaint for divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 93-5-2 (Supp.1981). On April 6, 1982, appellee entered a waiver of process. A property settlement agreement executed by both parties was also filed in the cause on this same day.

On May 24, 1982, appellee filed an answer in the cause denying that the chancery court had jurisdiction to render a decree for divorce in the cause because neither party had ever been a resident of Harrison County. Appellee also denied each and every allegation contained in the bill for divorce and averred a divorce action between the parties was then pending in the 173rd District Court of Henderson County, Texas. Thereafter, appellant filed a motion to amend his bill of complaint for divorce which was subsequently overruled, and an interlocutory decree entered accordingly.

Did the chancellor err in overruling appellant's motion to amend his bill of complaint for divorce?

Appellee has failed to file a brief in this cause with this Court. Her failure to do so is tantamount to confession of error. See State v. Maples, 402 So.2d 350 (Miss.1981); Mississippi State Highway Commission v. Hurst, 349 So.2d 545 (Miss.1977); Green v. Green, 317 So.2d 392 (Miss.1975); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank, 304 So.2d 636 (Miss.1974); Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Rogers, 284 So.2d 304 (Miss.1973); Burt v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Nassar v. Concordia Rod and Gun Club, Inc., No. 93-CA-00187-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 24, 1996
    ...evidence. And lack of probable cause for the initiation of the criminal proceedings is evidence of an improper purpose. Owens, 430 So.2d at 848 (emphasis added); Brown, 213 Miss. 365, 373, 56 So.2d 888, 891 (1952) (citation The Court also recognized in Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply C......
  • Muhammad v. Muhammad, No. 92-CA-470
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 5, 1993
    ...Debra's failure to file a brief on appeal "is tantamount to confession" of the errors alleged by the appellant. Price v. Price, 430 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss.1983); Green v. Green, 317 So.2d 392 (Miss.1975); Charles F. Hayes & Associates, Inc. v. Blue, 233 So.2d 127 (Miss.1970). Au......
  • Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply Co., Inc., No. 07-CA-59250
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 3, 1990
    ...is a question of fact, it is to be determined by the jury unless only one conclusion may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Kroger, 430 So.2d at 848 (quoting Brown v. Watkins, 213 Miss. 365, 373, 56 So.2d 888, 891 (1952)) (emphasis Because this is an appeal from a directed verdict, one ......
  • Gebetsberger v. East, No. 92-CA-0461
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1993
    ...to file a brief in this appeal is tantamount to admitting error. Rothschild v. Hermann, 542 So.2d 264, 265 (Miss.1989); Price v. Price, 430 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss.1983); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank, 304 So.2d 636, 637 A brief history of the case sub judice reveals......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Nassar v. Concordia Rod and Gun Club, Inc., No. 93-CA-00187-SCT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 24, 1996
    ...evidence. And lack of probable cause for the initiation of the criminal proceedings is evidence of an improper purpose. Owens, 430 So.2d at 848 (emphasis added); Brown, 213 Miss. 365, 373, 56 So.2d 888, 891 (1952) (citation The Court also recognized in Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply C......
  • Muhammad v. Muhammad, No. 92-CA-470
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • August 5, 1993
    ...Debra's failure to file a brief on appeal "is tantamount to confession" of the errors alleged by the appellant. Price v. Price, 430 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss.1983); Green v. Green, 317 So.2d 392 (Miss.1975); Charles F. Hayes & Associates, Inc. v. Blue, 233 So.2d 127 (Miss.1970). Au......
  • Benjamin v. Hooper Electronic Supply Co., Inc., No. 07-CA-59250
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 3, 1990
    ...is a question of fact, it is to be determined by the jury unless only one conclusion may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Kroger, 430 So.2d at 848 (quoting Brown v. Watkins, 213 Miss. 365, 373, 56 So.2d 888, 891 (1952)) (emphasis Because this is an appeal from a directed verdict, one ......
  • Gebetsberger v. East, No. 92-CA-0461
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1993
    ...to file a brief in this appeal is tantamount to admitting error. Rothschild v. Hermann, 542 So.2d 264, 265 (Miss.1989); Price v. Price, 430 So.2d 848, 849 (Miss.1983); Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. Deposit Guaranty Nat'l Bank, 304 So.2d 636, 637 A brief history of the case sub judice reveals......
  • 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