Long v. Long

Mississippi Supreme Court

Long v. Long

135 So. 204, 160 Miss. 492, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 219

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1931

DocketNo. 29203.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 135 So. 204 (Long v. Long) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Long v. Long, 135 So. 204, 160 Miss. 492, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 219 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree awarding the appellee a divorce from the appellant, his wife. The bill alleges two grounds of divorce, habitually cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery; the divorce being granted on the first of these grounds. As to the cruel and inhuman treatment, the evidence 'discloses that “honors are even” between the parties, each being as much of an offender as the other, the acts of each being* usually provoked by acts and words of the other. Where such is the case, neither party is entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Gormley v. Gormley, 161 La. 121, 108 So. 307; Healy v. Healy, 77 Ark. 94, 90 S. W. 845; 1st Bishop on Marriage and Divorce (5 Ed.), section 764; Keezer on Marriage and Divorce (2 Ed.), section 284.

The court below in its decree pretermitted a decision, on the charge of adultery, and counsel for both parties, after inquiry by the court, suggest that we now decide that issue.

Without setting* forth the evidence, it will be sufficient to say that the evidence, in support of the charge is wholly circumstantial, both the circumstances and the *494 fact itself being denied by the appellant, in which denial there is corroborating testimony. After carefully weighing all of the evidence, we are of the opinion that it is insufficient to justify a divorce on the ground of adultery.

Reversed, and bill dismissed.

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

Smith, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree awarding the appellee a divorce from the appellant, his wife. The bill alleges two grounds of divorce, habitually cruel and inhuman treatment and adultery; the divorce being granted on the first of these grounds. As to the cruel and inhuman treatment, the evidence 'discloses that “honors are even” between the parties, each being as much of an offender as the other, the acts of each being* usually provoked by acts and words of the other. Where such is the case, neither party is entitled to a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Gormley v. Gormley, 161 La. 121, 108 So. 307; Healy v. Healy, 77 Ark. 94, 90 S. W. 845; 1st Bishop on Marriage and Divorce (5 Ed.), section 764; Keezer on Marriage and Divorce (2 Ed.), section 284.

The court below in its decree pretermitted a decision, on the charge of adultery, and counsel for both parties, after inquiry by the court, suggest that we now decide that issue.

Without setting* forth the evidence, it will be sufficient to say that the evidence, in support of the charge is wholly circumstantial, both the circumstances and the *494 fact itself being denied by the appellant, in which denial there is corroborating testimony. After carefully weighing all of the evidence, we are of the opinion that it is insufficient to justify a divorce on the ground of adultery.

Reversed, and bill dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 204, 160 Miss. 492, 1931 Miss. LEXIS 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-v-long-miss-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack