Bandy v. Bandy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bandy v. Bandy

286 S.W. 877, 171 Ark. 717, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 512

DecidedJuly 12, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 286 S.W. 877 (Bandy v. Bandy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bandy v. Bandy, 286 S.W. 877, 171 Ark. 717, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 512 (Ark. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). Joe Bandy filed his motion to set aside the divorce decree in favor of his wife, on the second day of December, 1924, and it was overruled by the court on January 5, 1925, which was during the same term of the court. The sole ground relied upon to set aside the divorce decree was that it w;as prematurely rendered. The record show's that it was the practice of the court to hear divorce cases on oral testimony; and the case against the defendant, Joe Bandy, was postponed for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to defend the suit.

When the case was called for hearing, the defendant, Joe Bandy, was present in the courtroom, and made no defense to the action. Under these circumstances, his presence in court amounted to a consent that the case should he heard and determined. He had the opportunity to make any defense to the action that he might have, and, having failed to do so, he is not in an attitude to complain that the court refused to set aside the divorce decree.

.The record shows that the plaintiff, Fredea Bandy, acted throughout in the. utmost good- faith, and, since the decree of divorce was determined, has married another man in the State of Missouri.

It follows that the decree of the chancery court refusing to set aside the divorce decree should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). Joe Bandy filed his motion to set aside the divorce decree in favor of his wife, on the second day of December, 1924, and it was overruled by the court on January 5, 1925, which was during the same term of the court. The sole ground relied upon to set aside the divorce decree was that it w;as prematurely rendered. The record show's that it was the practice of the court to hear divorce cases on oral testimony; and the case against the defendant, Joe Bandy, was postponed for the purpose of giving him an opportunity to defend the suit.

When the case was called for hearing, the defendant, Joe Bandy, was present in the courtroom, and made no defense to the action. Under these circumstances, his presence in court amounted to a consent that the case should he heard and determined. He had the opportunity to make any defense to the action that he might have, and, having failed to do so, he is not in an attitude to complain that the court refused to set aside the divorce decree.

.The record shows that the plaintiff, Fredea Bandy, acted throughout in the. utmost good- faith, and, since the decree of divorce was determined, has married another man in the State of Missouri.

It follows that the decree of the chancery court refusing to set aside the divorce decree should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 S.W. 877, 171 Ark. 717, 1926 Ark. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bandy-v-bandy-ark-1926.