Redding v. Redding
Citation | 150 So. 776,167 Miss. 780 |
Decision Date | 13 November 1933 |
Docket Number | 30811 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
Parties | REDDING v. REDDING |
One waiting until cited for contempt for failure to pay alimony to plead physical inability in defense of charge had burden to prove clear case of disability, raising mere doubt being insufficient.
HON. A B. AMIS, SR., Chancellor.
APPEAL from chancery court of Newton county, HON. A. B. AMIS, SR. Chancellor.
Proceeding by Mrs. Cassie C. Redding to punish E. C. Redding for contempt. From an adverse decree, E. C. Redding appeals. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
J. D Carr and J. M. Carr, both of Newton, for appellant.
The evidence shows that appellant was receiving from the government the sum of twelve dollars per month because of injuries received in the service of the United States, and it is conclusively shown that this compensation is all that he had or could get with which to support himself. The evidence in this case shows that appellant's condition grew worse all the time, and it shows without dispute that during the time in question he was unable to get employment and unable to perform labor, such as he knew how to perform.
The appellant has a right to pay his necessary living expenses out of his earnings before paying anything on the decree awarding alimony to appellee.
W. M. Everett, of Hickory, for appellee.
The appellant has a right to pay his necessary living expenses out of his earnings before paying anything on the decree awarding alimony to appellee, but he must live economically, and whenever he has any money not required for his living expenses, it is his duty to pay it on the decree. And any failure so to do will be a contempt of court punishable as such.
We submit that under the authority laid down in 94 Miss. 598, 48 So. 186, general debtors of the husband could not be held in contempt, for failure to pay debts owing the judgment debtor, but this being a civil judgment against the appellant, he is properly held in contempt by the ruling of the court.
When in a proceeding against a husband for contempt in failure to comply with an order requiring payment of alimony pendente lite, he defended on the ground that he was unable to comply with the order, and the judgment against him recited that the chancellor was fully advised as to the matters and things pertaining to the proceeding and being so advised determined that defendant was in contempt. It necessarily found that he was able...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gebetsberger v. East, 92-CA-0461
...of presenting and making out a clear case of inability. Duncan v. Duncan, 417 So.2d 908, 909 (Miss.1982), citing Redding v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). This Court will not reverse a decision that is within the chancellor's discretion absent manifest error or application of a......
-
Clements v. Young, 55153
...v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 185, 87 So. 491, 493 (1921). The defendant has the burden of proving his inability to pay. Redding v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). Such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 Jimmy Clements......
-
Morreale v. Morreale
...v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 185, 87 So. 491, 493 (1921). The defendant has the burden of proving his inability to pay. Redding v. Redding, 167 Miss. 780, 150 So. 776 (1933). Such a showing must be made with particularity and not in general terms. Hooker v. Hooker, 205 So.2d 276, 278 Clements v. Yo......
- Roney v. State