Redmond v. Broadus Et Al.*

• Decision Date: 06 May 1929
• Docket Number: 27849
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: REDMOND v. BROADUS et al.*

122 So. 194

153 Miss. 889

REDMOND v. BROADUS et al.*

No. 27849

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 6, 1929

(Division B.)

DIVORCE. Wife's attorneys held not entitled to fees for past services in dismissed divorce suit, where wife was living with pretended second husband.

Wife's attorneys held not entitled to fees for past services in divorce suit commenced by husband, but dismissed at request of both parties, where wife was bigamist, living at time with her pretended second husband, since she was without standing in court of equity to demand alimony or on her part to require solicitor's fees in any such effort.

Division B

APPEAL from chancery court of Lamar county.

HON. T P. DALE, Chancellor.

Divorce suit by H. R. Redmond against his wife. The suit was dismissed, with a reservation that jurisdiction be retained to the extent that the court would hear motions by solicitors for the wife for allowance of solicitor's fees. A motion for allowance of such fees was made by Buren Broadus and others. From a decree against plaintiff for such solicitors' fees, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Reversed.

E. L Dent and Hall & Hall, for appellant.

W. J. Hatten, E. F. Coleman and Buren Broadus, for appellees.

OPINION

GRIFFITH, J.

On September 30, 1927, the appellant, Redmond, filed, in the chancery court of Lamar county, a divorce bill against his wife. At the time both parties were residents of this state, but neither of them resided, or has since resided, in Lamar county. That county, therefore, was not the proper county in which to file the bill. Process was served, nevertheless, on the defendant, then and now a minor, in Pearl River county, then and still the county of her residence. Through the solicitors who are appellees here, she filed in Lamar county an answer to the bill aforesaid, and also at the same time her cross-bill, by which she sought a divorce on her part, and also alimony temporary and permanent.

At a subsequent term both parties, the husband and the wife joined in a written motion, duly signed and officially acknowledged by them, praying the court to dismiss the entire proceedings as being without the jurisdiction of the court, and, for the same and other reasons set out in the request, that all orders theretofore made by the court be set aside and vacated. The court thereupon made and entered the order as requested except that the court inserted a reservation in the order that jurisdiction be retained to the extent that the court would hear any motions which the solicitors for the wife might make for the allowance to them of solicitors' fees for their services to her in said cause. Motion for the allowance of such fees was promptly made, upon which, after hearing, a decree was rendered against appellant for three hundred twenty-five dollars solicitors' fees for the past services of said solicitors. No appeal is prosecuted in respect to the action of the court in dismissing the cause and in setting aside and...