Hegwood v. Hegwood
Supreme Court of Arkansas
.Appeal from Woodruff: Chancery Court, Northern District; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The complaint alleges no ground of divorce under our statute. Kirby’s Digest, § § 2672-2678. The court had no jurisdiction. 2. The testimony is insufficient. 105 Ark. 196; 9 Id. 507; 38 Id. 98; 104 Id. 384; 53 Id. 484. 3. The property is not mentioned in the pleadings or testimony and the court had no jurisdiction.
Read the full summary
.Appeal from Woodruff: Chancery Court, Northern District; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; 1. The complaint alleges no ground of divorce under our statute. Kirby’s Digest, § § 2672-2678. The court had no jurisdiction. 2. The testimony is insufficient. 105 Ark. 196; 9 Id. 507; 38 Id. 98; 104 Id. 384; 53 Id. 484. 3. The property is not mentioned in the pleadings or testimony and the court had no jurisdiction. The appellant was not to blame and 'it was error to decree a divorce and award alimony. 115 Ark. 58 and cases supra. It is insisted here for the first time that the complaint is…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCULLOCH, C. J.
This is an action for "divorce by appellee against appellant. The court decreed a divoriee, and also awarded appellee her share of appellant’s property in accordance with the terms of the statute. Kirby’s Digest, § 2684. The grounds alleged for divorce were that appellant was guilty of cruel treatment, and offered such indignities as to render her condition intolerable. The grounds for divorce are not set forth in the exact language of the statute, but the allegations token as a whole are sufficient to constitute a statement of a cause of action on the statutory grounds stated above. The…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Hopping v. HoppingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1943
- Closson v. ClossonWyoming Supreme Court · 1923
- Angelletti v. AngellettiSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
- Smith v. HaltomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Bowling v. BowlingSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.