Russell v. Russell
| Decision Date | 16 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45962,45962 |
| Citation | 241 So.2d 366 |
| Parties | Richard Oliver RUSSELL v. Keith Dunbar RUSSELL. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Leon L. Porter, Jr., Semmes Luckett, Clarksdale, for appellant.
Wise, Carter & Child, M. Curtiss McKee, Jackson, for appellee.
This case came to this Court from the Chancery Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi, and it is an appeal from a decree of the chancery court awarding the husband, Richard Oliver Russell, a dirove from his wife, Keith Dunbar Russell. The husband appeals from that part of the decree by which the wife was awarded alimony in the sum of $500 per month and an attorneys' fee in the sum of $1,000.
We have carefully examined the record; we have studied the briefs; we have heard the argument of attorneys and have reached the conclusion that the decree of the chancery court in this case must be reversed for the following reasons.
The complainant and defendant were married and lived together for a period of approximately ten months. Mrs. Russel had been previously married and divorced. She had three sons, aged ten, seven and four, by her first marriage. Mr. Russell had been previously married and divorced. He had three daughters, aged seventeen, fourteen and eleven, by his first marriage. All of these people moved into the home of Mr. Russell. A short time thereafter friction occurred between Mr. and Mrs. Russell growing out of the relationship between Mr. Russell and the children of Mrs. Russell. The marital relationship between Mr. and Mrs. Russell grew from bad to worse, culminating in the attempted suicide of Mrs. Russell. Mrs. Russell's religious, political and social philosophy did not coincide with that of her husband.
There are untoward incidents shown in the record on which the chancellor could have and obviously did predicate his finding that the husband was entitled to a divorce. Our study of the record, however, indicates that the wife was not entirely to blame for the dissolution of the marital relationship. Mrs. Russell has dismissed her appeal in this case to this Court and we are not called upon to pass on that part of the decree. The only issues we have before us are: (1) Is the wife entitled to alimony, and (2) what is a reasonable fee for the services of her attorneys on appeal?
The general rule is that alimony will not be allowed to the wife when the husband is granted a divorce because of the wrongful conduct of the wife.
We have said that the husband is entitled to have his wife receive her support in his home while she is discharging the duties of a wife as imposed under the marriage contract. Cox v. Cox, 183 So.2d 921 (Miss.1966).
There are, however, several exceptions to this general rule. These exceptions are expressed by Bunkley and Morse's Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, section 6.04 (1957), at pages 183, 184:
* * * And the general rule is that alimony will not be allowed to the wife unless the decree for divorce is in her favor. The rule has been modified in a number of instances. The statute permits the allowance of alimony to the wife when a decree for divorce is rendered. Under some circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retzer v. Retzer
...a wife when the husband is granted a divorce because of her fault. Beacham v. Beacham, 383 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss.1980); Russell v. Russell, 241 So.2d 366, 367 (Miss.1970). The rule is a sound one and is based on the proposition that a husband is entitled to have his wife receive her support ......
-
Wood v. Wood
...divorce is granted by reason of the wrongful conduct of the wife. Beacham v. Beacham, 383 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss.1980); Russell v. Russell, 241 So.2d 366, 367 (Miss.1970). We have a long line of cases, however, recognizing that, where the parties have been married for a number of years, where......
-
Chaffin v. Chaffin
...had not contributed to the accumulation of her husband's property, and where the husband was not partially at fault. Russell v. Russell, 241 So.2d 366 (Miss.1970). We think appellant's situation is analogous to that of the wife in Russell on all of these points. Therefore, we opine the chan......
-
Smith v. Smith
...of her fault. Retzer v. Retzer, 578 So.2d 580, 592 (Miss.1990); Beacham v. Beacham, 383 So.2d 146, 147 (Miss.1980); Russell v. Russell, 241 So.2d 366, 367 (Miss.1970). The rule is a sound one and is based on the proposition that a husband is entitled to have his wife receive her support in ......