Richey v. Richey
| Decision Date | 11 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 43867,43867 |
| Parties | Mrs. Jean Rand RICHEY, Appellant, v. Homer G. RICHEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Burgin & Gholson, Columbus, for appellant.
Thomas J. Tubb, West Point, for appellee.
This appeal arises from the Chancery Court of Oktibbeha County wherein the appellant sought a decree of separate maintenance from her husband, and the husband countered by a cross bill seeking a divorce from his wife on the ground of desertion. The cause was consolidated with a replevin suit between the parties as to their respective possessory rights to numerous items of household furniture and various miscellaneous items of personal property. After a lengthy hearing, the trial court entered its decree dismissing the bill of the wife for separate maintenance, awarding a divorce to the husband upon the ground of desertion, awarding the wife alimony in the sum of $300 per month, and awarding the sum of $1,200 to the wife as attorneys' fees.
On this appeal the wife's primary assignments of error are: the lower court erred in failing to grant a decree of separate maintenance to the appellant; the court erred in granting an absolute divorce to the appellee; the lower court erred in fixing an insufficient amount of alimony; and the court erred in fixing an insufficient amount for attorneys' fees considering the time and work required.
The husband, cross-appellant, assigns as error the following: that the award by the trial court of alimony to the wife in any amount was improper; that if the award of alimony was proper under the circumstances, then the amount awarded was excessive, unreasonable, and unjust; and that the award of attorneys' fees was excessive.
We have carefully considered the record in its entirety, the supporting briefs, arguments of counsel, and the learned chancellor's finding of fact and opinion, and in the light of all the facts and circumstances in this most difficult case we cannot say that he was manifestly wrong in either his finding or the application of the law thereto. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 213 Miss. 9, 56 So.2d 58 (1952). The case made by the husband for a divorce is meager at best, particulary as to the husband's willingness to receive the wife back into the home, and certainly his actions and demeanor contributed to this domestic disaster. However, the evidence indicates that these parties cannot resume a normal marital relationship in view of their vicious and sordid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wires v. Wires, 47588
...comestic disaster. However, the evidence indicates that these parties cannot resume a normal marital relationship . . .' Richey v. Richey, 185 So.2d 431, 432 (1966). This Court then affirmed the divorce decree. See also Thames v. Thames, 233 Miss. 24, 100 So.2d 868 (1958) and Hoffman v. Hof......
-
Gallaspy v. Gallaspy
...to establish the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. See also Burnett v. Burnett, 271 So.2d 90 (Miss.1972) and Richey v. Richey, 185 So.2d 431 (Miss.1966). The case of Marble v. Marble, 457 So.2d 1342 (Miss.1984), involves a divorce on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman tr......
-
Stockton v. Stockton
...such as to warrant the trial court in finding that there was a probability of recurrence of the sexual deviations. See Richey v. Richey, 185 So.2d 431 (Miss.1966); Crutcher v. Crutcher, 86 Miss. 231, 38 So. 337 (1905); Johns v. Johns, 57 Miss. 530 (1879); Bunkley & Morse, Amis on Divorce an......
- Leggett v. Leggett