Decker v. Decker
| Decision Date | 04 April 1912 |
| Citation | 58 So. 195,176 Ala. 299 |
| Parties | DECKER v. DECKER ET AL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Marshall County; W. H. Simpson Chancellor.
Divorce by Etha M. Decker and others against George S. Decker. From a judgment awarding the custody of the children, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Street & Isbell, of Guntersville, for appellant.
John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellees.
In appellee's suit for divorce, alimony, and the custody of her children, the decree awarded relief as prayed, except that the custody and control of the elder child, a boy of eight years, was awarded to the defendant, appellant. The custody and control of the younger child, a boy of five, was awarded to complainant. Defendant appeals, but complains only of that provision of the decree which gave the younger child to the mother. He complains especially that the decree undertook to make the mother's custody permanent.
We will not enter upon a discussion of the testimony upon which the parties base their conflicting claims. It has been considered, but neither the interests of the child or parties, nor any purposes of precedent, are to be served by a statement of it. "Upon granting a divorce, the court may give the custody and education of the children of the marriage to either father or mother, as may seem right and proper, having regard to the moral character and prudence of the parents, the age and sex of the children." Code, § 3808. As the case has been presented to us, we think it highly probable that the chancellor has wisely disposed of it in all material respects. He need not have made the mother's custody of the younger child permanent, for that custody would remain as fixed by the court until disturbed by the decree of some court having jurisdiction in the premises. But the court of chancery has jurisdiction, independent of any statute, over the custody of infant children. Bryan v. Bryan, 34 Ala. 516. The court had no power, and we assume it did not intend, to foreclose future action on the subject-matter of the child's custody, in case it shall be presented to a court of competent jurisdiction on some material change of status. The decree is conclusive of the interests of the child and the rights of the parents, so long as the status of the time of the decree remains without material change; but at any time the court will, on proper application and a hearing, make such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bianco v. Graham
...divested itself of jurisdiction over the child which it had no authority to do. This argument is not valid. In the case of Decker v. Decker, 176 Ala. 299, 58 So. 195, the equity court rendered a decree granting permanent custody of a minor child to the appellee. The appellant complained on ......
-
Hardy v. Hardy
... ... unless pertinent facts existing at the time of the final ... decree are brought to light. Decker v. Decker, 176 ... Ala. 299, 58 So. 195; White v. White, supra; [247 Ala. 405, ... 24 So.2d 763], Padgett v. Padgett, 248 Ala. 234, ... [34 So.2d ... ...
-
Lawrence v. Sawyer
... ... change, or unless pertinent facts existing at the time of the ... final decree are brought to light.' Decker v ... Decker, 176 Ala. 299, 58 So. 195; White v ... White, 247 Ala. 405, 24 So.2d 763; Padgett v ... Padgett, 248 Ala. 234, 27 So.2d 205; ... ...
-
Coleman v. Coleman
...of infant children, and this power is independent of statute. 3 Pom.Eq.Jur. 1304, 1305; Bryan v. Bryan, 34 Ala. 516; Decker v. Decker, 176 Ala. 299, 58 So. 195; Hayes v. Hayes, 192 Ala. 280, 68 So. 351. It immaterial how that jurisdiction is invoked. Hansford v. Hansford, 10 Ala. 561; Woodr......