Baer v. Baer
| Decision Date | 28 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 22117.,22117. |
| Citation | 51 S.W.2d 873 |
| Parties | BAER v. BAER. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeals from St. Louis Circuit Court; H. A. Hamilton, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Action by Lucille C. Baer against Arthur B. Baer, wherein plaintiff was awarded a divorce. From an order entered upon plaintiff's motion to modify the decree theretofore rendered, as respects the custody of the minor child of the parties, and from an order denying plaintiff's motion for suit money and counsel fees in connection with the presentation and hearing of the principal motion and in connection with the prosecution of her appeal from the judgment and decision of the court thereon, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Abbott, Fauntleroy, Cullen & Edwards, Daniel Bartlett, and Jones, Hocker, Sullivan & Gladney, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Foristel, Mudd, Blair & Habenicht, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This case reaches us upon appeals by plaintiff, Lucille C. Baer, from certain orders and judgments of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis; the one being the order entered upon her motion to modify a decree of divorce theretofore rendered as respects the custody of the minor child of the parties; and the other, the order denying her motion for suit money and counsel fees in connection with the presentation and hearing of the principal motion, and the prosecution of her appeal from the judgment and decision of the court thereon.
Pending the submission of the case in this court, the parties stipulated that the two appeals might be consolidated as one cause, pursuant to which stipulation the order of consolidation was duly entered.
Plaintiff was married to defendant, Arthur B. Baer, in Chicago, Ill., on December 26, 1916, following which the parties thereafter lived together as husband and wife in the city of St. Louis until April 1, 1928, when the separation is alleged to have occurred. Of this marriage was born one child, a son, J. Arthur Baer, II, who would now appear to be eleven years of age. It is with respect to his custody that this proceeding has to do.
The action for divorce was instituted by plaintiff on May 14, 1928, by the filing of a petition counting upon general indignities. The petition was couched in extremely mild terms, and fills but one page in the abstract of the record. Plaintiff prayed therein to be divorced from the bonds of matrimony contracted with defendant, and to be awarded the custody of the minor child of the marriage.
No alimony for plaintiff or maintenance for the child was prayed in the petition; all such matters, including the custody of the child, being provided for in an agreement entered into between the parties prior to the rendition of the decree, and made contingent upon the entry thereof. The material portions of such agreement were the following:
Defendant at once entered his appearance to the action for divorce, and answered by a general denial; and on the same day the court entered its decree, awarding plaintiff a divorce as prayed, and making provision in its decree for the custody of the child as follows:
We quote the above portion of the decree as showing that it conformed in express terms to the written agreement of the parties which was entered into between them prior to the hearing of the case and the rendition of the decree therein. The significance of such agreement, and particularly of that portion thereof providing that "the child shall not be taken out of the state without the consent of both parents," will hereinafter appear.
Matters lay dormant so far as further court proceedings were concerned until October 21, 1930, when plaintiff filed her motion to modify the decree. The motion is quite long, and to set it out in its entirety would unduly lengthen this opinion. It first alleged the facts and circumstances attending the making of the agreement between the parties, the bringing of the same to the attention of the court, and the rendition of the decree of divorce. It then set up that the decree was vague, uncertain, and indefinite, and that it did not contain all the terms and conditions of the agreement with respect to the custody of the child and the payment of money for his support, all of which had given rise to differences, dissensions, and disputes between plaintiff and defendant. Finally it alleged that plaintiff had no kindred in the city of St. Louis; that substantially all her acquaintances were those she had made while residing in it as the wife of defendant; that all her near relatives were in the city of New York; and that she desired to make her home in the state of New York, and to reside there permanently.
The prayer of the motion was that the decree be modified as respects the custody and support of the child in the following particulars:
On December 13, 1930, defendant likewise filed his motion for a modification of the decree, praying that the custody of the child be awarded to him, with the right in plaintiff to visit the child and have its care and custody at reasonable hours.
The cause came on for hearing on the motions to modify; and on July 14, 1931, the court rendered its judgment and decision, which, so far as it concerns the issues on this appeal, was as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brashear v. Brashear
... ... jurisdiction, provided, the interests of the child will be served thereby. Baer v. Baer, Mo.App., 51 S.W.2d 873; Roosma v. Moots, 62 Idaho 450, 112 P.2d 1000; Holden v. Holden, 63 Idaho 70, 116 P.2d 1003. However, generally ... ...
-
L v. N
...238 S.W.2d 924, 927(1); Perr v. Perr, Mo.App., 205 S.W.2d 909, 911(3); Martin v. Martin, Mo.App., 160 S.W.2d 457, 459(4); Baer v. Baer, Mo.App., 51 S.W.2d 873, 878(2); In re Krauthoff, 191 Mo.App. 149, 171, 177 S.W. 1112, 1120.7 E_____ v. G_____, Mo.App., 317 S.W.2d 462, 467(1); Ragan v. Ra......
-
Poor v. Poor
... ... wishes of the father was sufficient to warrant changing their ... custody to the father. In re Krauthoff, 177 S.W ... 112; Baer v. Baer, 51 S.W.2d 873 ... Fulbright, ... J. Blair, P. J. , and Smith, J. , concur ... ... OPINION ... ...
-
Graves v. Wooden
... ... Arnold, Mo., 222 S.W. 996, 1001(12); Price v. Price, supra, 281 S.W.2d loc.cit. 313(17); Lehr v. Lehr, Mo.App., 264 S.W.2d 37, 39(1); Baer v. Baer, Mo.App., 51 S.W.2d 873, 880(14); Rutledge v. Rutledge, 177 Mo.App. 469, 119 S.W. 489. See also Noll v. Noll, Mo.App., 286 S.W.2d 58, 61(6); ... ...