TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Byerly v. Byerly

Marie Byerly v. Franklin Lee Byerly

Byerly v. Byerly, 140 S.E. 121 (Va. 1927)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 17, 1927
Judges
Chichester
Citations
140 S.E. 121149 Va. 531927 Va. LEXIS 174

Opinion of the Court — Chichester

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Chichester, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by Marie Byerly from a final decree of the Circuit Court of Rockingham county, denying appellant a divorce a mensa et thoro upon a charge of desertion on the part of her husband, Franklin Lee Byerly, appellee.

The cause was heard upon the bill and answer and depositions taken on behalf of the appellant. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of appellee nor was any effort made to deny any of the facts established by the evidence taken on behalf of the appellant.

The trial court, of its own motion, apparently, excluded from consideration as privileged, all communications between the husband and wife, although they were all oral and made for the most part in the presence of third parties, but held that even though the excluded evidence be considered the charge of desertion was not established.

We cannot agree with the conclusion of the learned chancellor either as to his action in excluding the evidence (Bailey v. Bailey, 21 Gratt. [62 Va.] 43; Grim v. Grim, 126 Va. 245 , 101 S. E. 140 ; Ringgold v. Ringgold, 128 Va. 485 , 104 S. E. 836 , 12 A. L. R. 1383), or as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the charge of desertion.

The evidence discloses that the appellant was practically driven away from the husband’s abode, which was with his father and mother, and that he repulsed repeated attempts to return, and appeals to be taken back, on the part of appellant. Without detailing this evidence, it is sufficient to say that under such circumstances the desertion is clearly established *55 and this case is controlled by the decisions in Washington v. Washington, 111 Va. 524 , 69 S. E. 322 ; Lee v. Lee, 112 Va. 719 , 72 S. E. 689 ; Lamb v. Lamb, 126 Va. 256 , 101 S. E. 223 ; Grim v. Grim, 126 Va. 245 , 101 S. E. 140 ; Isgett v. Isgeit, 126 Va. 599 , 101 S. E. 788 .

The decree of the circuit court is reversed, a decree will be entered here in accordance with the prayer of the bill, and the cause remanded to the circuit court for such future action with reference to enlargement of the divorce a mensa, here granted, into a divorce a vinculo as the facts may hereafter entitle appellant to.

The right to a decree allowing alimony being waived, the appellee is adjudged to pay the costs of this proceeding and a fee of $200.00 to counsel for appellant.

Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1942: 11944: 119422026peak 1942 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Forbes v. Forbes29 S.E.2d 829 (Va. 1944)
  2. Bowman v. Bowman22 S.E.2d 29 (Va. 1942)

Most recent

  1. Forbes v. Forbes29 S.E.2d 829 (Va. 1944)
  2. Bowman v. Bowman22 S.E.2d 29 (Va. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Grim v. Grim, 101 S.E. 140 (Va. 1919) 7
Ringgold v. Ringgold, 104 S.E. 836 (Va. 1920) 35
Washington v. Washington, 69 S.E. 322 (Va. 1910) 8
Lamb v. Lamb, 101 S.E. 223 (Va. 1919) 3
Isgett v. Isgett, 101 S.E. 788 (Va. 1920) 2
Hurley v. Charles, 72 S.E. 689 (Va. 1911) 12
Lee v. Lee, 112 Va. 719 (1911) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list