Williams v. Williams, 11114.

Decision Date09 January 1941
Docket NumberNo. 11114.,11114.
Citation146 S.W.2d 1013
PartiesWILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Kenneth McCalla, Judge.

Divorce suit by Silas Williams against Theresa Williams. From a judgment dismissing the cause, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

Charles H. Mayer, of Houston, for appellant.

No brief was filed in behalf of appellee.

CODY, Justice.

This is a suit for divorce. From a judgment dismissing the cause, this appeal is brought.

The court made these findings of fact and conclusions of Law;

"Findings of Fact.

"I find that the plaintiff, Silas Williams, was an actual bona fide inhabitant of the State of Texas from the 14th day of April, 1929, continuously, until the date of the filing of his original petition in this cause on the 19th day of February, 1940.

"I find that the plaintiff, Silas Williams, had actually and continuously resided in Harris County, Texas, from the 14th day of April, 1929, until the date of the filing of his original petition in this cause on the 19th day of February, 1940.

"I find that plaintiff, Silas Williams, and defendant, Theresa Williams, were legally and lawfully married at Houston, Texas, on the 14th day of April, 1929, and that plaintiff, Silas Williams, and defendant, Theresa Williams, continued to live together as husband and wife until on or about the 25th day of February, 1939.

"I find that, during the period of the marriage of plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff treated defendant with kindness and consideration, provided for her support and maintenance within his ability, and was guilty of no wrongdoing toward defendant.

"I further find that the defendant, Theresa Williams, during the last year that she and plaintiff, Silas Williams, lived together as husband and wife, to-wit: from on or about February 25th, 1938, to on or about February 25th, 1939, was guilty of cruel treatment and of outrages toward plaintiff, Silas Williams, of such a nature as to render their further living together insupportable.

"I find that no child was born to plaintiff and defendant, and no community property acquired.

"I find that the plaintiff, Silas Williams, continued to be an actual bona fide inhabitant of the State of Texas, and continued to be an actual resident of Harris County, Texas, for four (4) days after the filing of said original petition until the 23rd day of February, 1940, and that on this latter date, February 23rd, 1940, plaintiff left the State of Texas to go to work in, and at the time of the trial of this cause was working in, New York City, New York.

"I find that plaintiff at the time of the trial of this case on March 23, 1940, was not an actual bona fide inhabitant of the State of Texas, but was then, and is now, a resident of the State of New York.

"Conclusions of Law.

"I conclude as a matter of law, that the plaintiff, Silas Williams, having abandoned his residence in Texas before the date of the trial of this cause, and having become an inhabitant of a foreign state, is not entitled to a divorce in Texas."

It was held by our Supreme Court in Aucutt v. Aucutt, 122 Tex. 518, 62 S.W. 2d 77, 89 A.L.R. 1198, that Article 4631, Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, providing that no suit for divorce shall be maintained in the courts of this State unless the petitioner shall at the time of exhibiting his petition ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Robinson v. Robinson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1949
    ...v. Field, 68 Minn. 317, 71 N.W. 393, 64 Am.St.Rep. 479; Aucutt v. Aucutt, 122 Tex. 518, 62 S.W.2d 77, 89 A.L.R. 1198; Williams v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 1013; Therwhanger v. Therwhanger, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 704. The question as to whether the plaintiff has been a resident o......
  • Burk v. Burk
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 1953
    ...the appellant. Van Dyck v. Van Dyck, Tex.Civ.App., 121 S.W.2d 642; Russell v. Russell, Tex.Civ.App., 199 S.W.2d 858; Williams v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 1013; Evans v. Evans, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 277; Wheelis v. Wheelis, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W.2d 224. It, therefore, follows th......
  • Rickman v. Rickman
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1958
    ...v. Field, 68 Minn. 317, 71 N.W. 393, 64 Am.St.Rep. 479; Aucutt v. Aucutt, 122 Tex. 518, 62 S.W.2d 77, 89 A.L.R. 1198; Williams v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 1013; Therwhanger v. Therwhanger, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d 704. * * By not alleging the residence requirements in the complain......
  • Wheelis v. Wheelis, 15099
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • January 6, 1950
    ...which the relief is sought. Aucutt v. Aucutt, 122 Tex. 518, 62 S.W.2d 77; Kent v. Kent, Tex.Civ.App., 143 S.W.2d 159; Williams v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 146 S.W.2d 1013; Therwhanger v. Therwhanger, Tex.Civ.App., 175 S.W.2d It has been held that the allegations in a petition having relation......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT