Foster v. Foster
| Decision Date | 28 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8093.) |
| Citation | 230 S.W. 1064 |
| Parties | FOSTER v. FOSTER. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; J. D. Harvey, Judge.
Habeas corpus by M. E. Foster against Zaidee L. Foster to determine the custody of minor daughters. Judgment for relator, and respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Cooper & Merrill, of Houston, for appellant.
Wolters, Storey, Blanchard & Battaile and Huggins, Kayser & Liddell, all of Houston, for appellee.
This was a habeas corpus proceeding in the Eightieth district court, the father being relator and the mother respondent, the objective of which was the determination as between them of the custody of their two minor daughters. The petition for the writ alleged that while the custody of the children had, pursuant to agreement and under certain specified restrictions and conditions, been formerly awarded by the Eleventh district court in divorcing the parents to the mother, which judgment was a final adjudication of all the issues in that suit, conditions since that time had so wholly changed as to make it to the best interest of the children for the father thereafter to have them; it is deemed unnecessary to catalogue these averments; among other things, they charged detailed violations of the terms of the first decree, particularly those providing for visits of the children to their father and his control and direction of their education, to such extent as in effect to nullify and render performance of them impossible, and that the attitude, disposition, and conduct of the mother had so changed and developed since the divorce that she had become an unsuitable person to longer have the care, custody, and control of the young girls, in that she had set herself upon estranging them from their father and on so inducing them to believe untrue and scandalous things about him as would cause them to regard him with odium, in which efforts she had to some extent even then succeeded. There was also the statement of a number of material differences in his own situation and surroundings.
Notwithstanding pleas in abatement, to the jurisdiction, and of special denial of all the material averments of the application on respondent's part, the writ duly issued, and the court heard all the facts touching the matter from a great number of witnesses, including both parents and the two children. The prior decree of the Eleventh district court of date August 20, 1919, and quite an exchange of letters between the younger of the daughters and her father, were likewise in evidence.
The hearing resulted in a judgment by which the custody of the younger child was given to the father and that of the older to the mother, with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Liquor Control Board v. Jones
...at the time of the adoption of our Constitution in 1876. Pittman v. Byars, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 83, 112 S.W. 102, followed in Foster v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1064, and cited and approved by the Commission of Appeals in Burckhalter v. Conyer, 9 S.W.2d 1029; Johnson v. State, Tex.Civ.App.......
-
In re S.N.
...art. I, § 12 ("The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right, and shall never be suspended."); see Foster v. Foster, 230 S.W. 1064, 1064-65 (Tex.Civ. App.-Galveston 1921, writ dism'd) (district court has authority to grant habeas relief by modifying custody determination rendered in a differ......
-
Wade v. Shaughnessy
...165, 116 A.L.R. 1293; Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 331; Stone v. Dickerson, Tex.Civ.App., 138 S.W.2d 200; Foster v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1064; Gazell v. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 410; Pittman v. Byars, 51 Tex.Civ.App., 83, 112 S.W. 102; Keith v. Keith, Tex.Civ.App.,......
-
Goldsmith v. Salkey
...allegations of a material change in conditions since the original rendition. Black v. Black, Tex.Civ.App., 2 S.W.2d 331; Foster v. Foster, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 1064; Gazell v. Garcia, Tex.Civ.App., 187 S.W. 410, writ refused; Pittman v. Byars, 51 Tex.Civ.App. 83, 112 S.W. 102; Keith v. Ke......