Coleman v. Coleman, No. 309
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRUNE; BRUNE |
| Citation | 228 Md. 610,180 A.2d 875 |
| Docket Number | No. 309 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1962 |
| Parties | Bertha Irene COLEMAN v. George COLEMAN. |
Page 610
v.
George COLEMAN.
Page 611
[180 A.2d 876] Edward C. Mackie, Baltimore (Rollins, Smalkin, Weston & Andrew, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Eugene G. Ricks, Towson (Smith & Harrison, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
BRUNE, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of an equity court entered in proceedings initiated by the appellant mother seeking custody of the eleven-year-old son of the parties, which awarded custody of the boy to the appellee father.
The parties separated early in February, 1961, this suit was filed on March 17, 1961, and on some date not shown by the record extract, 1 but before May 5, 1961, the appellant filed a bill in the same court seeking a divorce a mensa and custody of the child. By agreement of counsel, both the bill for custody (this suit) and the wife's prayer for alimony pendente lite were referred to a Master for report on May 5,
Page 612
1961. A report was requested by the Master from the Probation Office of the Division for Juvenile Causes of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. A probation officer submitted a report, which was approved by her superior, recommending that custody be awarded the mother, and this recommendation was adopted by the Master. The Master's report states that he was informed that by coincidence the wife's earlier bill for custody and her petition for alimony had been scheduled for hearing in court on the same day. For some reason which is not wholly clear (perhaps partly because of a change in counsel for the appellee) the two cases were not later heard together, and the custody case came on for hearing first. We were informed at the argument that the wife's divorce suit has not yet been heard, that after the filing of the opinion but the day before the entry of the order in the custody case which is here appealed from, the appellee filed a cross-bill for a divorce a mensa, and that both the bill and the cross-bill are scheduled for early hearing in the trial court. Consideration of these statements seems proper for much the same reasons of practical necessity which lead us to consider matters occurring subsequent to a trial, and hence not in the record, which render a case moot.The record in this case shows that at a number of points the scope of testimony was limited so as to exclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
11 practice notes
-
Anderson, In re, No. 8
...Id. at 267, 145 A. at 615. To like effect, see, e. g., Taylor v. Taylor, 246 Md. 616, 619, 229 A.2d 131 (1967), and Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). Cf. Montchester v. Honga River, 257 Md. 79, 84-85, 262 A.2d 312, 314 (1970). We there said that Art. 15, relating to......
-
Glading v. Furman, No. 83
...Md. 264, 267, 145 A. 614, 615 (1929); accord, Burns v. Bines, 189 Md. 157, 162, 55 A.2d 487, 57 A.2d 188 (1947); see Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). Thus we have read the statute as imbuing the circuit court with power to modify a decretal provision for child supp......
-
Taylor v. Taylor, No. 23
...for their support, did not emanate from the Legislature. Glading v. Furman, 282 Md. 200, 208, 383 A.2d 398 (1978); Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). See also 1 Nelson on Divorce and Annulment § 1.03, at 10 (J. Henderson 2d ed. 1945), wherein the author [S]uch matter......
-
Franciscus v. Franciscus, No. 760
...A.2d 459] Art. § 3-602. The statute is legislative declaration of a jurisdiction long exercised by courts of equity. Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). See also Taylor v. Taylor, supra; Smith v. Smith, 216 Md. 141, 140 A.2d 58 (1958); Burns v. Bines, 189 Md. 157, 55 A.2d ......
Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
-
Anderson, In re, No. 8
...Id. at 267, 145 A. at 615. To like effect, see, e. g., Taylor v. Taylor, 246 Md. 616, 619, 229 A.2d 131 (1967), and Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). Cf. Montchester v. Honga River, 257 Md. 79, 84-85, 262 A.2d 312, 314 (1970). We there said that Art. 15, relating to......
-
Glading v. Furman, No. 83
...Md. 264, 267, 145 A. 614, 615 (1929); accord, Burns v. Bines, 189 Md. 157, 162, 55 A.2d 487, 57 A.2d 188 (1947); see Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). Thus we have read the statute as imbuing the circuit court with power to modify a decretal provision for child supp......
-
Taylor v. Taylor, No. 23
...for their support, did not emanate from the Legislature. Glading v. Furman, 282 Md. 200, 208, 383 A.2d 398 (1978); Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 613, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). See also 1 Nelson on Divorce and Annulment § 1.03, at 10 (J. Henderson 2d ed. 1945), wherein the author [S]uch matter......
-
Franciscus v. Franciscus, No. 760
...A.2d 459] Art. § 3-602. The statute is legislative declaration of a jurisdiction long exercised by courts of equity. Coleman v. Coleman, 228 Md. 610, 180 A.2d 875 (1962). See also Taylor v. Taylor, supra; Smith v. Smith, 216 Md. 141, 140 A.2d 58 (1958); Burns v. Bines, 189 Md. 157, 55 A.2d ......
Request a trial to view additional results