{
  "id": 1488314,
  "name": "Goggin v. Goggin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goggin v. Goggin",
  "decision_date": "1943-05-03",
  "docket_number": "4-7054",
  "first_page": "769",
  "last_page": "771",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ark. 769"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "170 S.W.2d 683"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 2866,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "sha256": "9df86db45397e0a502d6861212b49b5236960d374f8a83464428f26ea6bcffc7",
    "simhash": "1:ca7153284752b213",
    "word_count": 454
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:03.571044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Goggin v. Goggin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Geiitin Smith, C. J.\nAppellant and appellee, during the twenty-seven years of their married life, had separated twenty or twenty-five times, due to incompatibility, or to the ebullient disposition o of one or the other. Records do not clearly disclose the source of blame. It is indicated, however, that neither is wholly guiltless.\nEven in this environment, where tranquillity only occasionally prevailed, mutual respect' for family obligations seems to have promoted short-lived periods of cooperation while a son and daughter were passing from childhood to maturity; but this era of repose was shadowed by the reservation that when the couple\u2019s issue no longer required parental guidance, marital obligations would be cast aside.\nThis appeal is from an order of the Chancery Court vacating a decree of divorce obtained March 14, 1942, on the husband\u2019s complaint that his wife\u2019s \u201cnever-ceasing nagging and quarreling rendered his life unbearable and intolerable.\u201d An allegation was that there had been \u201ca complete and full settlement of all property rights.\u201d The Court was asked to approve this accord, \u201cas will be shown by the testimony herein.\u201d\nThe decree recited that the defendant\u2019s written waiver of service had been filed, consenting that a hearing be had in term or vacation. An affirmative finding is that the cause was heard upon the complaint and waiver. There is no reference to testimony; nor does the record show what evidence was before the Court.\nDefendant\u2019s petition to vacate was filed July 28. Collusion, duress (amounting to coercion), and failure to make property settlement, were charged. Notice of the petition was duly served upon AAGll Goggin. Written information was given that an order would be requested to restrain Goggin from beating, abusing, or otherwise attempting to injure or intimidate the petitioner, her witnesses, or any other person connected with the litigation. Lis pendens, relating to designated real property, was lodged with the Clerk.\nAugust 5, 1942, the Court required Goggin to execute a compliance bond, responsive to allegations that the petitioner and her witnesses were being intimidated. When, the respondent\u2019s demurrer had been overruled, he answered and cross complained.\nThe Court, in effect, found that the July entry of appearance had been obtained through the husband\u2019s coercion; that authority to set aside -the proceeding was to be found in \u00a7 8246 of Pope\u2019s Digest, and that \u00a7 8248 had been substantially complied with.\nWithout reviewing evidence, we think that the absence of record testimony (and the want of a showing that the decree reflected the Court\u2019s understanding of issues) justified the order vacating from which this appeal comes. It is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Geiitin Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henley & Henley, for appellant.",
      "TF. F. Beeves, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Goggin v. Goggin.\n4-7054\n170 S. W. 2d 683\nOpinion delivered May 3, 1943.\nHenley & Henley, for appellant.\nTF. F. Beeves, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0769-01",
  "first_page_order": 789,
  "last_page_order": 791
}