Rutledge v. Rutledge

• Decision Date: 02 August 1955
• Citation: 2 McCanless 665,198 Tenn. 665,281 S.W.2d 666
• Parties: William RUTLEDGE v. Maudell RUTLEDGE. 2 McCanless 665, 198 Tenn. 665, 281 S.W.2d 666
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 666

281 S.W.2d 666

William RUTLEDGE v. Maudell RUTLEDGE.

2 McCanless 665, 198 Tenn. 665, 281 S.W.2d 666

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Aug. 2, 1955.

Mary Guidi, Memphis, for appellant.

Irving M. Strauch, Memphis, for appellee.

PREWITT, Justice.

This cause comes here from a decree of the Chancery Court of Shelby County, sustaining a demurrer to the bill of the complainant William Rutledge, seeking to set aside and have declared null and void the judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and this Court, 268 S.W.2d 343, awarding the defendant Maudell Rutledge a divorce and alimony.

The theory of complainant's bill is that at the time he married Maudell Rutledge he had a living wife Evalena Marks Rutledge, whom he married in 1922, and that he had never been divorced from the said Evalena Marks Rutledge; that later on he married the defendant Maudell Rutledge at Marion, Arkansas, but by his bill the complainant insists that the second marriage was of no legal effect on account of the fact there was a previous subsisting marriage.

Heretofore Maudell Rutledge filed her bill in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, against this complainant William Rutledge, setting up cruel and inhuman treatment, sought alimony and divorce. This suit was contested by complainant and much proof was taken. The Circuit Court awarded the defendant, Maudell Rutledge, a divorce and alimony consisting among other things of certain real estate in the City of Memphis. From that judgment an appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals at Jackson, and the action of the Circuit Judge was in all respects affirmed.

It appeared in that case that the complainant, William Rutledge, did not preserve his proof by bill of exceptions, and the Court of Appeals ruled that the presumption was that the second marriage was legal. Certiorari was denied by this Court.

The present bill charges that complainant, William Rutledge, and the defendant, Maudell Rutledge, were never at any time husband and wife legally; that the complainant, William Rutledge, at the time he attempted the purporting marriage with the defendant in Marion, Arkansas, was legally bound by his first marriage to Evalena Marks Rutledge.

The present bill also charges that complainant, William Rutledge, at no time or place ever filed a suit or obtained a divorce dissolving his first marriage to Evalena Marks Rutledge.

Furthermore, that the first wife of complainant Evalena Marks Rutledge, at no time or place ever filed a suit for or obtained a divorce from William Rutledge, dissolving her marriage with him.

The defendant, Maudell Rutledge, filed her demurrer to the present bill on the ground that all of the matters complained of in the bill were res judicata, and that the present bill was an effort to collaterally attack a valid judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County.

We find no error in the decree of the Chancellor sustaining the demurrer. We think the plea of res judicata is good.

A final judgment or decree of the Court of competent jurisdiction, once pronounced upon a question directly involved in the action, is conclusive between the parties. Beare v. Burnett, 162 Tenn. 610, 39 S.W.2d...