{ "id": 5345282, "name": "Willie HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dollie T. HINES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Hines v. Hines", "decision_date": "1958-08-11", "docket_number": "No. 6423", "first_page": "377", "last_page": "380", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "64 N.M. 377" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "328 P.2d 944" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "50 N.M. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1577084 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/50/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565140 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "101 A.L.R. 635", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.M. 480", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573432 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "267" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/39/0480-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 P. 330", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 N.M. 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841465 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/28/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 N.M. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582935 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/55/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 N.M. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1587658 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/58/0395-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 378, "char_count": 4800, "ocr_confidence": 0.729, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7830647984691635e-07, "percentile": 0.7137669030124922 }, "sha256": "947780c9ddb03498528fa73f71dbc341fa8de6d6df92f05d37da9e5d6b112151", "simhash": "1:db20a32baa284d75", "word_count": 798 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:53.757247+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SADLER, McGHEE, COMPTON, and SHILLINGLAW, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "Willie HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dollie T. HINES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LUJAN, Chief Justice.\nDefendant-appellant, Dollie T. Hines, appeals from a final decree and judgment granting a divorce to plaintiff-appellee, Willie Hines, on the ground of incompatibility. No children were born of the marriage and there is no community property. The parties were married on August 12, 1943, at Shreveport, Louisiana, two or three weeks after appellee had been drafted into the Navy. They separated on or about December 28, 1946, and never saw each other again until January 28, 1958, the day of the trial.\nThe court found: \u201cThat by reason of a total variance in taste, dispositions, ambitions, mental attitudes and ideals of plaintiff and defendant, they were, and are, wholly and completely incompatible and unable to live together in peace.\u201d\nThe appellee testified as follows :\n\u201cQ. * * * What was the cause of your separation? A. Well, at that time I was drafted in the Navy in \u201943. Well I stayed in the Navy three years, two months and four days. Well I got out and I was going to school at night and working in the day at Pine Bluff.\n\u201cQ. Pine Bluff, Arkansas? A. That\u2019s right, and at times I\u2019d come home from work and she wouldn\u2019t have meals prepared and she\u2019d want to go and visit with friends when I wanted food and lots of time she\u2019d want to go somewhere else.\n\u201cQ. Did you have any arguments and disagreements? A. We did have some.\n\u201cQ. What about? A. About the food and I\u2019d want her to go with me and she\u2019d want to go somewhere else.\n******\n\u201cQ. Now how do you feel right now, do you feel that you and Dollie can reconcile and go back together and live as husband and wife? A. No, sir, not after twelve years, no sir. * * \u201d\nOn cross-examination he was asked:\n\u201cQ. Well, you got along all. right that time didn\u2019t you? A. Well, not too good then.\u201d\nCounsel for appellant, in his brief, disregards entirely the testimony of the appellee, argues the weight of appellant\u2019s testimony, and contends that the trial court erred in finding the parties incompatible.\nThe findings of fact made by the trial court, including the one challenged, are supported by sufficient evidence of a substantial nature, and are therefore, for the purpose of review, the facts in the case. In reviewing the evidence on appeal, all disputed facts are resolved in favor of the successful party and all reasonable inferences indulged in to support the judgment. All evidence and inferences to the contrary will be disregarded and the evidence viewed in the aspect most favorable to the judgment. We have spoken upon this substantial evidence rule so often that citation of authority is unnecessary.\nAs to the trial court\u2019s refusal of appellant\u2019s requested findings of fact, suffice it to say that the refused findings were diametrically opposed to or inconsistent with the facts properly found by the trial court in support of the final decree and judgment. Therefore, the refusal was not error. Alexander v. Cowart, 58 N.M. 395, 271 P.2d 1005; Wedgwood v. Colclazier, 55 N.M. 32, 226 P.2d 99; Bezemek v. Balduini, 28 N.M. 124, 207 P. 330.\nIn the case of Chavez v. Chavez, 39 N.M. 480, 50 P.2d 264, 267, 101 A.L.R. 635, Justice Hudspeth in a specially concurring opinion said:\n\u201ccIncompatibility\u2019 is defined by the Century Dictionary as: \u2018The quality or condition of being incompatible; incongruity ; irreconcilableness.\u2019 And Webster\u2019s New International Dictionary: \u2018Quality or state of being incompatible; inconsistency; * * * incapable of harmonious combination; incongruous; as, incompatible colors; incapable of harmonious association or acting in accord; disagreeing; as incompatible persons. * * * \u2019 Pope\u2019s Legal Definitions gives the following: \u2018Incompatibility. \u201cThe elements and qualities which may create incompatibility between persons elude exact definition, so varied are the circumstances and so dependent is such a state of feeling upon education, habits of thought and peculiarities of character, ijt % ifc \u00bb # >}c s[c J \u00bb\nSee, also, Poteet v. Poteet, 45 N.M. 214, 114 P.2d 91, and Pavletich v. Pavletich, 50 N.M. 224, 174 P.2d 826.\nTaking all of the facts of this case into consideration, together with the further fact that the parties were living in separate cities and did not see each other for more than twelve years, we cannot say that the final decree and judgment of the trial court in granting the divorce on the ground of incompatibility was clearly against the weight of the evidence.\nFinding no error in the record the final decree and judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSADLER, McGHEE, COMPTON, and SHILLINGLAW, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LUJAN, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. Benson Newell, Las 'Cruces, for appellant.", "L. J. Maveety, Las Cruces, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "328 P.2d 944\nWillie HINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dollie T. HINES, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 6423.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nAug. 11, 1958.\nJ. Benson Newell, Las 'Cruces, for appellant.\nL. J. Maveety, Las Cruces, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0377-01", "first_page_order": 409, "last_page_order": 412 }