Brooks v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 17 June 1933
• Citation: 61 S.W.2d 654
• Parties: BROOKS v. BROOKS.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 654

61 S.W.2d 654

BROOKS v. BROOKS.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 17, 1933.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Benton County; Tom L. Rye, Chancellor.

Suit by Rubye Crockett Brooks against Tom Brooks. From a decree overruling a demurrer to the bill, the defendant appeals by permission.

Decree modified in accordance with opinion, and cause remanded.

Peeler & Peeler, of Camden, for appellant.

J. C. R. McCall, of Huntingdon, for appellee.

SWIGGART, Justice.

This bill was filed by Mrs. Brooks against her divorced husband to recover sums expended by her for the necessary support of their daughter, and for a decree requiring the husband to provide for the child's future support.

The chancellor overruled a demurrer to the bill, and, exercising his discretion, granted the defendant's prayer for an appeal.

The parties were divorced in 1925, at the mother's suit. Custody of the child, then only one year of age, was awarded to the mother. No provision was made for the support of the child in the divorce action. The bill avers that complainant has supported herself and the child by keeping house for her uncle, for which she is paid $4 a week, in addition to the board of herself and child; that she has spent $60 a year for clothing for the child, and now, that she has started to school, it will require from $60 to $150 a year to clothe her. The defendant is employed in Detroit, Mich., and "earns a sufficient sum to support himself and family and his said child." Complainant has no property of any kind.

The natural and legal obligation of the father to support his minor child, continuing after divorce and award of custody to the mother, has been recognized and enforced by this court. Evans v. Evans, 125 Tenn. 112, 140 S. W. 745, 747, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 294; Graham v. Graham, 140 Tenn. 328, 204 S. W. 987; Owen v. Watson, 157 Tenn. 352, 8 S.W.(2d) 484.

The cases cited clearly sustain the right of complainant to prosecute her bill, to the extent that she seeks reimbursement for money expended by her for the necessary support of the child.

The defendant, however, pleads and relies upon Acts 1923, chapter 41, carried into the Code as sections 8463-8466, as working a change in the rule applied by the cases cited.

Section 8463 of the Code provides: "Fathers and mothers are joint natural guardians of their minor children, and they are equally and jointly charged with their care, nurture, welfare, education, and support, and also with the care, management and expenditure of their estates."

The obligation previously resting upon the father to maintain and support his minor children cannot be said to have been destroyed by this statute. That obligation was to provide for the child "in a manner commensurate with his means and station in life." Evans v. Evans, supra. The obligation cast upon the mother by the statute must be measured by the same varying and relative standard. It is obvious, therefore, that the "equal and joint" obligation imposed upon both parents cannot be divided between them by arbitrary or mathematical measure. The obligation of both to...