Yelverton v. Yelverton

Mississippi Supreme Court

Yelverton v. Yelverton

28 So. 2d 176, 200 Miss. 569, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 324

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1946

DocketNo. 36213.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 28 So. 2d 176 (Yelverton v. Yelverton) 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

Yelverton v. Yelverton, 28 So. 2d 176, 200 Miss. 569, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 324 (Mich. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is governed by Winkler v. Winkler, 104 Miss. 1, 61 So. 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1250, and we would not find it necessary to say anything further were it not that it seems to be argued by appellant that the holding in the Winkler case has been modified by subsequent opinions, or if not,, that some modification ought to be made now.

. The cases subsequent to the Winkler case, so far as cited on the present appeal, are Walker v. Walker, 140 Miss. 340, 105 So. 753, 42 A. L. R. 1525; Coffee v. Coffee, 145 Miss. 872, 111 So. 377; Gresham v. Gresham, 198 Miss. 43; 21 So. (2d) 414; Wilson v. Wilson, 198 Miss. 334, 22 So. (2d) 161; and Bell v. Bell (Miss.), 23 So. (2d) 800. None of these cases modify the ruling in the Winkler case; and as to any modification now, wé would call at *571 tention to the fact that Section 1673, Code 1906, in. force - when the Winkler case was decided, was later re-enacted as Section 1421, Code 1930, in precisely the same words, now Section 2743, Code 1942, so that the interpretation which the Court had put upon the statute a's it existed when the Winkler case was decided became a part of the statute when it was re-enacted in 1930, with the result that if any modification is to be made of what was held in the Winkler case, it must be done by the Legislature and not by us.

Affirmed.

Sydney, Smith, C. J., did not participate in this decision.

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

Griffith, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case is governed by Winkler v. Winkler, 104 Miss. 1, 61 So. 1, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1250, and we would not find it necessary to say anything further were it not that it seems to be argued by appellant that the holding in the Winkler case has been modified by subsequent opinions, or if not,, that some modification ought to be made now.

. The cases subsequent to the Winkler case, so far as cited on the present appeal, are Walker v. Walker, 140 Miss. 340, 105 So. 753, 42 A. L. R. 1525; Coffee v. Coffee, 145 Miss. 872, 111 So. 377; Gresham v. Gresham, 198 Miss. 43; 21 So. (2d) 414; Wilson v. Wilson, 198 Miss. 334, 22 So. (2d) 161; and Bell v. Bell (Miss.), 23 So. (2d) 800. None of these cases modify the ruling in the Winkler case; and as to any modification now, wé would call at *571 tention to the fact that Section 1673, Code 1906, in. force - when the Winkler case was decided, was later re-enacted as Section 1421, Code 1930, in precisely the same words, now Section 2743, Code 1942, so that the interpretation which the Court had put upon the statute a's it existed when the Winkler case was decided became a part of the statute when it was re-enacted in 1930, with the result that if any modification is to be made of what was held in the Winkler case, it must be done by the Legislature and not by us.

Affirmed.

Sydney, Smith, C. J., did not participate in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 So. 2d 176, 200 Miss. 569, 1946 Miss. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yelverton-v-yelverton-miss-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack