Glenn v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 29 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 2464.,2464. |
| Citation | 183 S.W.2d 231 |
| Parties | GLENN v. GLENN. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Eastland County; B. W. Patterson, Judge.
Suit by Etura Glenn against James A. Glenn for divorce on ground of cruel treatment. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Murray J. Howze, of Monahans, for appellant.
Allen D. Dabney, of Eastland, for appellee.
Etura Glenn instituted this suit against James A. Glenn, her husband, seeking to recover of him a divorce, the care and custody of two small children and to establish some property rights. The defendant answered contesting her claims, and a trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff granting her the divorce, the care and custody of the children, as well as certain separate property rights and some support for the children during a limited time.
The appellant contests the judgment on the ground that "The evidence is not sufficient to sustain a judgment for divorce on the ground of cruel treatment as alleged in plaintiff's petition." No point is made that there is no evidence to support the judgment, or that it is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
The plaintiff seeks the divorce upon the ground specified in Art. 4629, sec. 1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., reading as follows:
"Where either party is guilty of excesses, cruel treatment or outrages toward the other, if such ill treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable."
Under the testimony, the plaintiff relies upon such authorities as Eatman v. Eatman, 75 Tex. 473, 12 S.W. 1107; McCullough v. McCullough, Tex.Civ.App., 20 S.W.2d 224; Arendale v. Arendale, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W.2d 1080; Blackburn v. Blackburn, Tex.Civ.App., 163 S.W.2d 251; and Kyle v. Kyle, Tex.Civ.App. 55 S.W.2d 885.
It is a well settled rule that it is for the jury or the court (as in this case) to decide issues of fact upon conflicting evidence or such evidence which is susceptible to diverse inferences. 41 T.J. 934, sec. 164; 3 T.J. p. 1088, sec. 764. The least that can be said of the evidence in this case is that it is conflicting, presenting questions of fact for the determination of the trial court, since the case was tried without a jury. 19 T.J. p. 682, sec. 254. Under such circumstances it is elementary that the trier of facts has the exclusive function of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonney v. San Antonio Transit Co.
...Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Knighten, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 843; Mortensen v. Mortensen, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 297; Glenn v. Glenn, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 231. In Douty v. Delta Drilling Co., Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W.2d 164, 167, writ refused n. r. e., Douty, while riding in a car own......
-
Mortensen v. Mortensen, 11475.
...remaining community property is in the possession of the defendant, and should be awarded to plaintiff." In the recent case of Glenn v. Glenn, 183 S.W.2d 231, the Eastland Court of Civil Appeals, in discussing the contention that the evidence was insufficient, states the following rule as a......
-
Stewart v. Friona State Bank
...of determining the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony in a case such as this. Glenn v. Glenn, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 231; Shock v. Mrs. Ragsdale's Foods Co., Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 353. More than once, the majority opinion seems to call into question......
-
Southwestern Inv. Co. v. Allen
...witness heard and the weight to be given to his testimony and had the right to believe or disregard and evidence heard. Glenn v. Glenn, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 231; Henwood v. Polis & Hagan, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 720; Shock v. Mrs. Ragsdale's Foods Co., Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 353. It ......