Sandifer v. Sandifer, 38530
| Decision Date | 17 November 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38530,38530 |
| Citation | 215 Miss. 414,61 So.2d 144 |
| Parties | SANDIFER v. SANDIFER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Thigpen & Stewart, Picayune, for appellant.
H. H. Parker, Poplarville, for appellee.
Appellant, Ada Lee Sandifer, filed a bill for divorce against appellee, Sebe Sandifer, in the Chancery Court of Pearl River County, and alleged as the basis of it desertion. Appellee then filed an answer denying the allegations of appellant's bill, and a cross-bill seeking a divorce against appellant on the ground of habitual cruel and inhuman treatment. Miss.Code 1942, Sec. 2735(7). Appellant, by leave of court, dismissed her original bill of complaint. The court proceeded to trial on the cross-bill and answer to it, and after hearing the evidence, awarded appellee a divorce.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence, and without detailing it, have concluded that it is sufficient to support the finding of the chancery court. Upon disputed questions of fact, the chancellor's findings will be accepted when they are substantially supported by the evidence and reasonable inferences from it. The chancellor manifestly believed the testimony of appellee and his witnesses. We must accept that as true. That evidence reflects a long period of continuing abusive language directed by appellant against appellee, characterized by continuous nagging, slander, unsociability and several threats of physical violence, including one threat to shoot appellee with a pistol, and numerous threats to poison his food. This continuing conduct by appellant, the trial court could have found, created in appellee, a colored man over 70 years of age, a reasonable apprehension of physical danger and actual distress, because appellee said he was afraid of her, and had locks placed on the inside of the half of the house which he occupied and had stopped eating at home because of appellant's threats to poison him. The chancellor also could have concluded that such infamous conduct by appellant rendered the marital relation revolting to appellee and made it impossible for him to discharge its duties. These circumstances were culminated by appellant leaving appellee's home and moving elsewhere. Without particularizing further, the record reflects sufficient facts and reasonable deductions from them to warrant the trial court in finding that they came within the rule laid down in Russell v. Russell, 1930, 157 Miss. 425, 128 So. 270, 272: 'Cruel and inhuman treatment, unaccompanied by personal violence, within the meaning of the statute, is such conduct only as endangers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rakestraw v. Rakestraw
...although varying in character, cause suffering on part of innocent spouse when displayed in combination). See also Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 (1952); Smith v. Smith, 40 So.2d 156 (Miss.1949); Manning v. Manning, 160 Miss. 318, 133 So. 673 (1931). Because the whole of ......
-
Rosamond v. Rosamond
...Stringer v. Stringer, 209 Miss. 326, 46 So.2d 791 (1950); McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 58 So.2d 831 (1952); Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 (1952). Furthermore, the court had a right to observe the witnesses testifying, and he could and should have taken this fact in......
-
Chaffin v. Chaffin
...threatened to kill him and this prompted him to remove all the guns from the house. On similar facts this Court in Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 (1952), upheld the decree, finding the conduct satisfied the pronouncements in Russell v. Russell, 157 Miss. 425, 128 So. 270 ......
-
Criswell v. Criswell
...Taylor v. Taylor, 235 Miss. 239, 108 So.2d 872 (1959); Hibner v. Hibner, 217 Miss. 611, 64 So.2d 756 (1953); Sandifer v. Sandifer, 215 Miss. 414, 61 So.2d 144 (1952); McBroom v. McBroom, 214 Miss. 360, 58 So.2d 831 (1952); Cummings v. Cummings, 213 Miss. 863, 58 So.2d 39 (1952); Hoffman v. ......