Evans v. Evans
| Decision Date | 22 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35475. |
| Citation | 15 So.2d 698,195 Miss. 320 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | EVANS v. EVANS. |
Jeff Collins, of Laurel, for appellant.
Welch & Cooper and G. W. Hosey, all of Laurel, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the mother of James E. Evans, a minor, from the decree of the Chancery Court of Jones County, modifying a decree made at a former term of the court with reference to the custody of the child as between herself and the appellee George W. Evans, her husband and father of the child. They were divorced in November, 1941. At that term of the court a decree was made awarding the father, to a very large extent the custody of the child, who was about seven years of age. At the November, 1942, term of the court, on the application of the mother (the father having married again) the decree was modified to the extent that the father was only permitted to have the custody of the child Sunday afternoons from one to six o'clock.
At the April term of the court, on the application of the father, a decree was rendered giving the father exclusive custody of the child for the month of July of each year. That decree left the Sunday visits in force, as provided in the modified decree. In addition, it provided as follows:
The changes in the surroundings and relations of the parties, as alleged in the petition of the father, and supported by the evidence, were that the child was approaching nine years of age; that he was devoted to his father; that his father had horses, and the child loved to go on horseback trips with his father; that the father desired, and the boy would love, to go on business trips with him; that such plans were materially interfered with, and often prevented, by the decree fixing the father's custody on Sunday from one to six o'clock in the afternoon. The chancellor found that these were material changes, and modified the former decree to the extent above set out.
We are of the opinion that, under the authority of section 1421, Code 1930, the decree ought to be affirmed, notwithstanding the former decree was, as contended by the appellant, the ex-wife, res judicata as to the facts then existing, upon which it was based. We think the subsequent changes in the relations of the parties were sufficient to justify the decree. "In any contest concerning the custody of a minor child, the best interests and welfare of the child are the matters of chief importance." 39 Am.Jur. page 607 sec. 20. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. Ward
...of a divorce decree is one aspect of the principle of res judicata. Elders v. Elders, 206 Ga. 297, 57 S.E.2d 83; Evans v. Evans, 195 Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698; Goodman v. Goodman, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 641; Goldson v. Goldson, 192 Or. 611, 236 P.2d 314; Meredith v. Meredith, 203 Or. 45, 27......
-
Smith v. Smith
...visitation are recognized are: Syas v. Syas, 150 Neb. 533, 34 N.W.2d 884; Lamb v. Lamb, 348 Mich. 557, 83 N.W.2d 323; Evans v. Evans, 195 Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698, 699; McCown v. McCown, Fla.App., 167 So.2d 250; Bogardus v. Bogardus, 102 Cal.App. 503, 283 P. 127; Garner v. Garner, 143 Okl. 1......
-
Cassell v. Cassell, 37973
...20, Parent and Child; 67 C.J.S., Parent and Child, Sec. 12a, page 646; Duncan v. Duncan, 119 Miss. 271, 80 So. 697; Evans v. Evans, 195 Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698; Haynie v. Hudgins, It is generally recognized that orders in divorce proceedings as to the custody of minor children are subject t......
-
Hershey v. Hershey
...348 Mich. 557, 83 N.W.2d 323; Felker v. Felker, Tex.Civ.App., 216 S.W.2d 669; Syas v. Syas, 150 Neb. 533, 34 N.W.2d 884; Evans v. Evans, 195 Miss. 320, 15 So.2d 698; 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 317(2), p. 541. Inconvenience of visitation is not here a factor preventing termination of residential r......