Davis v. Sears
Decision Date | 04 February 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 1200-5551.,1200-5551. |
Citation | 35 S.W.2d 99 |
Parties | DAVIS et ux. v. SEARS et ux. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Samuels, Foster, Brown & McGee, of Fort Worth, Paul V. Harrell, of Cross Plains, and Phillips & Phillips, of Dallas, for plaintiffs in error.
Mack & Mack, of Fort Worth, and John W. Woods, of Dallas, for defendants in error.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by the parents of a male child now 5 years old, against Porter J. and Annie Davis, husband and wife. The application for the writ states that the minor son, Kent Sears, Jr., of the applicants, is in possession of, and is illegally restrained of his liberty by said Davis and wife. There was no other pleading on the part of the parents of the minor. Davis and his wife answered at some length, and, after a general demurrer and a general denial, alleged that Mrs. Alma McBroom Sears, under the name of Alma McBroom, had, by written instrument duly executed, empowered the Hope Cottage Association of Dallas County, Tex., to secure for her infant child a home with people of their selection; that under such authority they (Davis and wife) took said child on July 7, 1925, when it was three months and one day old, and they had made and provided for the child a good home, and were rearing it under good influences and Christian surroundings, had adopted it in the manner provided by law, and that it was to the best interest of the child that it remain in their exclusive custody, care, and control, and alleging other facts indicating that the present environment of the child was good and would likely so remain.
The trial judge who heard the case, without the aid of a jury, refused to disturb the custody of the child, declaring in the judgment rendered "that it is to the best interest of the minor, Kent Sears, Jr., and to his future welfare, that his permanent care, custody, control and possession remain with the defendants, Porter J. Davis and wife, Mrs. Annie Davis." The motion for a new trial having been overruled, and the court having been required to file its conclusions of law and findings of fact, which it did, the record was finally lodged with the Court of Civil Appeals for the Eleventh Supreme Judicial District, where, upon a hearing, the judgment of the district court was reversed, and judgment rendered in favor of the parents of the minor, giving to them the exclusive custody and control of the child. 19 S.W.(2d) 159. After the motion for rehearing had been filed in and overruled by the Court of Civil Appeals, an application for writ of error was filed in and granted by the Supreme Court. The assignments of error assail the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals as being contrary to the law and the undisputed facts.
First assignment of error: "Since the trial court expressly found that it is to the best interest of this child for his custody to remain with his foster parents, these plaintiffs in error, and the proof amply supports that finding, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in not affirming the judgment of the trial court."
Second assignment of error: "Since the trial court expressly found that it is to the best interest of this child for his custody to remain with his foster parents, these plaintiffs in error, and the proof amply supports that finding, the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor of these plaintiffs in error, notwithstanding this, on the mistaken theory that a failure to show a positive unfitness on the part of the defendants in error concludes the controversy in their favor and forecloses all inquiry as to what is to the child's best interest."
Since the findings of fact, duly filed in response to a motion to that effect by the trial judge, are not assailed as being unsupported by the testimony sufficient to justify the same, and since these findings of fact thus unassailed are binding upon the Court of Civil Appeals, and since they have been sufficiently summarized by that court in its opinion, we here adopt said summary, to wit:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adoption of a Minor, In re
...155 F.2d 870; Chance v. Pigneguy, 212 Ky. 430, 432-433, 279 S.W. 640.6 Ex parte Combs, Ohio Com.Pl., 150 N.E.2d 505; Davis v. Sears, Tex.Com.App., 35 S.W.2d 99, 102-103; In re Adoption of Morrison, 260 Wis. 50, 63-65, 49 N.W.2d 759, 51 N.W.2d 713. See Royer Adoption, 34 Del.Co.Rep., Pa., 40......
-
Laws' Adoption, In re
...does not retroactively operate to make the father's consent necessary. (Ex parte Combs, Ohio Com.Pl., 150 N.E.2d 505; Davis v. Sears, Tex.Com.App., 35 S.W.2d 99, 102-103; Adoption of a Minor, 338 Mass. 635, 156 N.E.2d 801; Adoption of Anderson, 235 Minn. 192, 198-199, 50 N.W.2d 278; Adoptio......
-
Hendrick v. Voss
...295 S.W.2d 266; Herre v. Morris, Tex.Civ.App., 251 S.W.2d 260; Austin v. Collins, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 666; Davis v. Sears, Tex.Com.App., 35 S.W.2d 99; Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W. 281. This is especially true when, as in this case, others have had the child for some time, and......
-
Taylor v. Meek
...best interests of the child the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Legate v. Legate, 87 Tex. 248, 28 S.W. 281; Davis v. Sears, Tex.Com.App., 1931, 35 S.W.2d 99; Greenlaw v. Dilworth, Tex.Com.App., 299 S.W. 875; Castro v. Castellanos, Tex.Com.App., 1927, 294 S.W. 525; Neal v. Medcalf,......