Fuller v. Fuller
| Decision Date | 22 October 1932 |
| Parties | FULLER ET AL. v. FULLER. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Roane County; J. H. Wallace, Chancellor.
Suit by Margaret Fuller, by her next friend, Mary D. Fuller, and others against Robert C. Fuller. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
W. Polk Wright, of Rockwood, for petitioners.
J Ralph Tedder, of Rockwood, for defendant.
In September, 1930, Mary D. Fuller was granted an absolute divorce from the defendant Robert C. Fuller. She was also awarded exclusive custody of their child Margaret. No provision was made in the decree for alimony or for the support and maintenance of the child. The case was not retained on the docket of the court for any purpose. The proceeding ended with the final decree. This petition was filed February 4, 1932, by Mary D. Fuller, suing on behalf of the child. In her petition she asked the court to award a decree in her behalf against the divorced husband for $120 money that she had expended for the child, and, by further prayer, for a peremptory order directing the divorced husband to pay into the office of the clerk a sufficient sum each month to support the child during minority, and for all such orders as are necessary to compel such payments.
The petition was demurred to. At the hearing on demurrer, the petitioner dismissed so much of her petition as sought a personal judgment against the divorced husband. At a hearing upon the demurrer, the trial judge dismissed the petition in its entirety upon the ground that, while the husband is liable for the maintenance and support of his child, such liability cannot be fixed by an independent proceeding such as the petitioner seeks to maintain.
We are of the opinion that Cunningham v. Cunningham, 120 Tex. 491, 40 S.W.2d 46, 75 A.L.R. 1305, sustains the conclusion of the circuit judge. It was there held, in substance, that, in the absence of a statute empowering courts to decree and compel the payment of allowances for the support of dependent minors whose custody was awarded to the mother in divorce proceedings, neither the mother nor the child may maintain an independent suit against the father. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 120 Tex. 491, 40 S.W.2d 46, 75 A.L.R. 1305.
Counsel for plaintiff in error admits, on page 7 of his brief, that the weight of authority is contrary to the contention of petitioner,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atkinson v. Atkinson
... ... See Evans v. Evans, 125 Tenn. 112, 140 S.W. 745, ... Ann. Cas. 1913C, 294; Baker v. Baker, 169 Tenn. 589, ... 592, 89 S.W.2d 763; Fuller v. Fuller, 169 Tenn. 586, ... 89 S.W.2d 762; Cartwright v. Juvenile Court, 172 ... Tenn. 626, 113 S.W.2d 754 ... The ... first ... ...
-
Davenport v. Davenport
...treated as a new proceeding brought by the wife and mother, either in her own right, or as next friend of the children. Fuller v. Fuller, 169 Tenn. 586, 89 S.W.2d 762, Baker v. Baker, 169 Tenn. 589, 89 S.W.2d 763. These and other of our cases recognize the father's legal liability for the s......
-
Cartwright v. Juvenile Court at Nashville
... ... reimbursement on behalf of the person who has furnished ... necessities to the child. Fuller v. Fuller, 169 ... Tenn. 586, 89 S.W.2d 762; Baker v. Baker, 169 Tenn ... 589, 89 S.W.2d 763 ... When, ... however, a child ... ...