[DOWNLOAD] "Little v. Mississippi Department of Human Services" by Mississippi Supreme Court ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Little v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
- Author : Mississippi Supreme Court
- Release Date : January 07, 2002
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 70 KB
Description
Divorce — Desertion — Residence — Jurisdiction — Connivance — Cross-complaint — Nature of Pleading. Divorce — Desertion — What not Bar to Charge — Connivance. 1. Where in an action for divorce against the husband on the ground of cruelty the latter by cross-complaint charged the wife with desertion, the fact that he during the wifes absence from his home before commencement of the action made regular monthly payments to her, as well as some after its commencement, for her support did not preclude him from contending that she was a deserter, nor amount to a "corrupt consent" to her acts of desertion within Page 58 the meaning of section 5751, Revised Codes of 1921, defining "connivance," which, under section 5750, bars divorce. Same — Residence of Plaintiff — Jurisdiction. 2. The party seeking a divorce must allege and prove residence within the state for the statutory period — one year next preceding the commencement of the action. (Sec. 5766, Rev. Codes 1921.) Same — Cross-complaint — Finding Against Plaintiff on Issue of Residence Leaves Unaffected Right of Defendant to Decree. 3. The fact that in a divorce action by the wife in which the husband filed a cross-complaint the court found the issues, among which was the wifes residence in the state for the statutory time, in favor of defendant, thus impliedly finding against plaintiff as to residence, did not deprive it of jurisdiction to grant relief to defendant under his cross-complaint, such a pleading being in effect a complaint in an independent action, to which plaintiff made reply. Same — Desertion — Pendency of Prior Action — When Counted as Part of Period of Desertion, When not. 4. Though the general rule is that the time of the pendency of a prior divorce action (instituted by the wife) cannot be counted as part of the period of desertion charged against her in a later suit by the husband, the rule is otherwise where the deserting spouse institutes her action in bad faith. Same — Case at Bar. 5. Evidence in an action for divorce by the wife on the ground of cruelty, in which the husband more than nineteen months after the filing of the complaint interposed a cross-complaint asking divorce on the ground of desertion, showing that after institution of her action she promised to have it dismissed, that the character of her evidence relating to cruelty on the part of the husband was weak and unsatisfactory, etc., held sufficient to warrant an implied finding that her action was not brought in good faith, thus making applicable the exception to the general rule above (par. 4) as to not counting the pendency of a divorce action as a part of the period of desertion.