Andrews v. Andrews
| Decision Date | 24 December 1863 |
| Citation | 15 Iowa 423 |
| Parties | ANDREWS v. ANDREWS |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Marshall District Court.
THE facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.
Bradley for the appellant
Henderson and Boardman for the appellee.
Hon CALEB BALDWIN, Chief Justice, Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Judge Hon. RALPH P. LOWE, Judge, from December 7 to December 24 1863. Hon. GEORGE G. WRIGHT, Chief Justice, Hon. RALPH P. LOWE, Judge, from January 1, 1864, to the conclusion of the Term. [*]
In September, 1860, a decree, divorcing the parties, was entered of record in said county. It was ordered that the defendant should pay Julia C. Andrews, the plaintiff, $ 300 as alimony, and that defendant should have the care and custody of the child, Obed T. Andrews, with the privilege, on the part of plaintiff, to visit and see the child on all reasonable occasions.
In December, 1862, the defendant made application in the form of a petition to change and modify the above order, upon the ground that the plaintiff has been greatly annoying him and his family by her pretended visits to see the child, and plotting to deprive him of the lawful custody of the same ; that in order to avoid her annoyance and the loss of the child, he had removed to the State of Ohio, but was followed by the plaintiff, who finally succeeded, through the hired agency of two men, in kidnapping the child : that it cost him $ 80, and much time and trouble to recover it again; that he still is compelled to keep the child guarded and from school, &c.
The plaintiff, who was notified by publication of the pendency of this application, appeared and demurred to the petition on several grounds, but the two causes relied upon in argument were that this Court had no jurisdiction of the subject matter or the parties; and secondly, that the application was made after the expiration of one year, contrary to the provisions of chapter 141 of the Revision of 1860. This demurrer was overruled, the defendant abiding the order ; the original decree was modified, so as to cut off the plaintiff's right of access to the child in the future, and to reduce the former judgment of alimony to two hundred and twenty dollars.
In regard to the last objection stated, that this application was not made within one year after the rendition of the former decree, it is a sufficient reply to say that the same was evidently made under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Mullins
...state of Montana, is entitled to the custody of the children, for the purpose of returning them to that jurisdiction.' In Andrews v. Andrews, 15 Iowa 423, a valid decree divorce had awarded the custody of the child to the defendant father, with visitation rights to the mother. Two years lat......
-
Parks v. Parks
...as to child custody upon a showing of a change in conditions making such modification for the best interest of the child. Andrews v. Andrews, 15 Iowa 423, 425; Blachly v. Blachly, 169 Iowa 489, 151 N.W. 447; Franklin v. Bonner, 201 Iowa 516, 207 N.W. 778; Helton v. Crawley, 241 Iowa 296, 31......
-
Huger v. Huger
...a divorce decree does not extinguish the jurisdiction of the court entering said decree to subsequently modify the same, citing, Andrews v. Andrews, 15 Iowa 423. And that jurisdiction to modify a decree of divorce with respect to the custody of children inheres in the court granting said de......
-
Hentz v. Hentz
...court of jurisdiction to exercise its reserved and continuing power to change its determination as to custody. Similarly held in Andrews v. Andrews, 15 Iowa 423. In Conrad v. Conrad, Mo.App., 296 S.W. 196, it was held that the removal of a child from the State does not amount to taking him ......