Case Title: Pittman v. Pittman

Citation: 375 So. 2d 415

Docket Number: 51484

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1979-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
375 So. 2d 415 (1979) Sylvester PITTMAN v. Ella Mae Polk PITTMAN, Deceased, Revived in the Name of Willie Polk, Administrator. No. 51484. Supreme Court of Mississippi. October 3, 1979. Cecil G. Johnson, Biloxi, for appellant. Hill & McCarthy, Michael C. Hill, Biloxi, for appellee. Before SMITH, LEE and BOWLING, JJ. BOWLING, Justice, for the Court: This appeal is from the Chancery Court of the Second Judicial District of Harrison County. The lower court entered a final decree of divorce and other incidental adjudications. Appellant advances several assignments of error. We note only the first as its disposition renders the other assignments moot. The primary assignment is that a decree was entered by the chancellor after the death of Ella Mae Polk Pittman, complainant in the cause, and, therefore, was a void decree. The hearing which resulted in the final decree was held on September 26, 1978. The lower court continued the cause for final disposition and a final decree in vacation. On October 3, 1978, the court addressed a letter to the solicitors for both *416 parties, setting out his findings, including a divorce to Mrs. Pittman, and requesting that the solicitors prepare a decree in accordance with the findings set out in the letter. After negotiation, the solicitors agreed on the form of a final decree, which was executed and filed in the cause by the court on October 27, 1978. In the meantime, the appellee, Ella Mae Polk Pittman, had died on October 17, 1978. The authorities are clear that the death of complainant in the divorce action prior to the execution and entry of the final decree by the lower court ended the marriage of the parties and cancelled fully the bill of complaint for divorce and incidental property relief. This is so even though testimony had been heard in the cause and the court had issued what might be termed an "interlocutory order" in the form of a letter. The principle involved is clearly stated in 104 A.L.R. 654, as follows: Griffith, Mississippi Chancery Practice section 620, page 667, states in part: Griffith further said: In the case of Orr v. Myers, 223 Miss. 856, 79 So. 2d 277 (1955), this Court said: The general rule on the question before us was well set out by the Supreme Court of Ohio in the case of Caprita v. Caprita, 145 Ohio St. 5, 60 N.E.2d 483 (1945), where it was said: *417 As hereinbefore stated, all issues in the cause were incidental to the request for a divorce and the contest thereon, and the entire cause died with the complainant. The cause is therefore reversed and rendered without prejudice to the rights of any person affected by the death of the complainant. REVERSED AND RENDERED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and COFER, JJ., concur.