Trainum v. Trainum, 40872
| Decision Date | 20 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 40872,40872 |
| Citation | Trainum v. Trainum, 105 So.2d 628, 234 Miss. 448 (Miss. 1958) |
| Parties | Bobby TRAINUM v. Peggy Sue TRAINUM. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Stovall & Price, Corinth, for appellant.
Johnson & Trout, Senatobia, for appellee.
The appellantBobby Trainum, who was 18 years of age, and the appelleePeggy Sue Trainum, who was 16 years of age, were married at Hernando, DeSoto County, Mississippi, on April 14, 1956.They separated on that same day, the appellant having carried the appellee to the home of her parents in Tate County where she has since resided.He thereupon returned to the home of his father at Corinth in Alcorn County, Mississippi, where he reentered the high school at the beginning of its next term, and where he has continued to reside since 1942, except for a temporary stay in DeSoto County for a period of approximately 6 weeks where his father was operating a portable sawmill, and where the appellant was employed.
On May 5, 1957, the appellee filed this suit in the Chancery Court of Tate County, where she still resided with her parents, and asked for a decree against the appellant for alimony pendente lite, separate maintenance, and attorney's fees, no decree of divorce having been sought by either of the parties in this litigation.
On Sunday after the suit was filed a summons was served on the appellant by personal service in DeSoto County when he was found in that County temporarily.Upon the filing of the bill of complaint the chancellor set the cause for hearing in vacation on May 17, 1957, in Tate County, and when the appellant appeared before the court at the vacation hearing in Tate Countyhe was served with an additional summons in that county.He filed a petition wherein he objected to the cause being heard in Tate County for lack of venue therein, setting forth that he was a resident of Alcorn County at the time the suit was filed and on the date of the vacation hearing therein.His objection to the venue of the case was denied and he thereupon asked for an interlocutory appeal to this court, but the chancellor ordered that the hearing proceed on the merits of the bill for alimony pendente lite, separate maintenance, and attorney's fees.At the conclusion of this hearing, wherein it was conclusively shown that the appellant was a resident of Alcorn County, Mississippi, and that the appellee and her father knew at the time the bill of complaint was filed that he was a resident of such county, the trial court instead of transferring the cause to the Chancery Court of Alcorn County, adjudicated that the appellant should pay unto the appellee the sum of $80 per month as alimony pendente lite for the support of the appellee and her child, whom the chancellor found was the child of the appellant, and also required that he should pay the total sum of $100 to her as an attorney's fee.The court further ordered that the appellant should stand committed until he should execute a bond in the sum of $500 to secure the payment of the award made to the appellee, as the same should become due and payable during the pendency of this appeal.
Thereupon the court granted...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dunn v. Dunn
...530 So.2d 1363, 1366 (Miss.1988); Gillard v. Great Southern Mtg. & Loan Corp., 354 So.2d 794, 796 (Miss.1978); Trainum v. Trainum, 234 Miss. 448, 452, 105 So.2d 628, 630 (1958). Never to be overlooked when such issues are raised in the trial courts is our policy that a defendant sued alone ......