Harris v. Turner

• Decision Date: 07 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 15453.,15453.
• Citation: Harris v. Turner, 329 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1964)
• Parties: Elizabeth HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James B. TURNER et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

329 F.2d 918 (1964)

Elizabeth HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.James B. TURNER et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15453.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

April 7, 1964.

John S. Wrinkle, Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellant.

Sizer Chambliss, Chattanooga, Tenn.(Goins, Gammon, Baker & Robinson, Morgan & Garner, Arvin H. Reingold, Collins & Lee, Atchley & Atchley, Dietzen, Graham & Dietzen, Chattanooga, Tenn., of counsel), for appellees.

Before WEICK, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges.

HARRY PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

As well stated by the District Judge, "this controversy grows out of an episode occurring during a prolonged, tortuous and acrimonious state litigation between parents concerning the custody of their child."

The appellant, mother of the child, filed suit for $50,000 in damages alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983and1985.By a separate count of her complaint she sued for common law conspiracy to take away her child, alleging diversity of citizenship.The defendants-appellees are the Circuit Judge of Hamilton County, Tennessee, who made an adjudication divesting appellant of custody of the child; the District Attorney General of Hamilton County; the Sheriff of the County, the surety on his official bond and three of his deputies; the father and paternal grandparents of the child; and the Chattanooga attorney who represented the father in the protracted state litigation.

The Honorable Leslie R. Darr, Senior District Judge, sustained motions of the defendants for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, holding that the evidence offered on the motions did not sustain claims upon which relief could be granted.The facts, as found by the trial judge, in summary are as follows:

On May 30, 1957, appellant, at the age of 16, married appelleeJ. B. Talley, Jr., age 26, who had been formerly married.To this union a daughter, Linda Diane Talley, was born on February 25, 1958.Soon after the birth of the child, appellant sued for and was granted a divorce from Talley in proceedings filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and was given custody and control of the child.Some time later appellant took her child to Ohio to reside, and the father filed a petition in accordance with Tennessee law to modify the divorce decree so as to place custody and control of the child in him.A carbon copy of this petition was received by appellant in Ohio by registered mail from the father's attorney.Circuit Judge David Tom Walker, appellee herein, conducted a hearing which was not attended by appellant, heard proof and modified the divorce decree by awarding custody of the child to the father.A few days later appellant sought to have the default judgment set aside, but Judge Walker declined to do so.Thereupon appellant filed a petition to rehear, which was denied, and perfected an appeal to the State Court of Appeals.

In the meantime the father had gone to Ohio, obtained custody of the child, and brought her to the home of his parents in Chattanooga.Appellant also returned to Chattanooga.

While her appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, appellant went to the home of her former husband's parents on a Sunday afternoon and took the child to a home where she was staying in Chattanooga.A report was made to the Sheriff's office that the child had been taken away or "kidnapped."In response to this report, two deputies sheriff went to the place where appellant was staying and required her, according to the complaint, to go to the county jail on Sunday evening for the purpose of settling the difficulty.After the appellant and her child had been taken to jail, one of the deputies telephoned Judge Walker at his home to ascertain who was entitled to custody of the child.Judge Walker informed the deputy that he had awarded custody to the father and that the father was entitled to custody.The complaint avers that appellant also was placed on the telephone with Judge Walker, who said in substance that his decree awarded custody to the father and that appellant would be in contempt of court and put in jail if she did not release the child to the father.The complaint further avers that the attorney for appellant telephoned Judge Walker at his home and was told he would be fined for contempt if he advised the appellant that she was entitled to custody of the child pending the appeal.Appellant thereupon surrendered custody of the child to the father and the child has remained in the custody of the father in the home of the paternal grandparents since that time.

Thereafter, under date of December 2, 1960, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee handed down an unpublished opinion reversing the judgment of the trial court in awarding custody to the father and ordering a rehearing, on the ground that there was not proper notice to appellant of the hearing upon the petition to modify the original decree.¹

Upon rehearing before Judge Walker, the Circuit Court of Hamilton County again awarded custody of the child to the father upon the express stipulation that the child was to reside with the paternal grandparents.²

This decree likewise was appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee which affirmed the award of custody of the child to the father.Talley v. Talley (1962), Tenn.App., 371 S.W.2d 152, cert. denied, Supreme Court of Tennessee, May 10, 1963, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 915, 184 S.Ct. 216, 11 L.Ed.2d 154.³

The nub of appellant's action in this case, as stated by the District Judge, is that her child was taken away from her by conspiracy of the defendants-appellees in a high-handed manner, under an ineffectual court decree.Appellant argues that on the Sunday when she took possession of the child and removed her from the home of the paternal grandparents and was taken into custody by the deputies sheriff, she had perfected an appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals from the decree of Judge Walker awarding custody to the father; that this decree entered by Judge Walker was abrogated by the appeal; that the abrogation of this decree by her appeal operated to reinstate the earlier decree under which appellant was awarded custody; and therefore appellant had the legal right to the custody of the child pending the appeal, and was deprived of her right by an unlawful conspiracy on the part of appellees.

This contention is based upon the distinction made under the law of Tennessee between an appeal in an equity case tried according to the forms of chancery and an appeal in error in a case tried according to the forms of law.It has been said that an unlimited simple appeal in an equity case tried according to the forms of chancery has the effect of vacating the decree appealed from and transferring the entire case to the appellate court where it is heard de novo.Fort v. Fort, 118 Tenn. 103, 111, 101 S.W. 433;Smith v. Holmes, 59 Tenn. 466, 468.SeeT.C.A. § 27-301.The leading Tennessee text on equity procedure states that an appeal "absolutely devitalizes a decree as an adjudication, and confers full jurisdiction on the appellate court to deal with the cause as though no decree had ever been pronounced."Gibson's Suits in Chancery (5th Edition)§ 1326.⁴On the other hand, an appeal in error in a case tried according to the forms of law merely suspends the judgment of the inferior court, and does not annul or destroy it.Gilreath's History of a Law Suit (8th Edition)§ 445;Furber v. Carter, 34 Tenn. 1, 3.

Whether divorce cases are filed in the chancery court or in the circuit court, review in the Tennessee Court of Appeals is by appeal, rather than by appeal in error, and the case is tried in the appellate courtde novo,T.C.A. § 36-830, with a presumption of correctness of the decree of the trial court unless the evidence preponderated against it.Clardy v. Clardy, 23 Tenn.App. 608, 136 S.W.2d 526;Greene v. Greene, 43 Tenn.App. 411, 309 S.W.2d 403.

Upon these authorities appellant contends that the decree awarding custody of her child to the father was annulled and abrogated by the appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.We are cited to no Tennessee case holding that a judgment of a trial court in a divorce case awarding custody of children is abrogated and annulled by appeal.There is no provision to that effect in the state divorce statutes, T.C.A., Chapter 8, Title 36.

Although the statute provides that review of divorce cases shall be by appeal, T.C.A. § 36-830, a divorce action is statutory and is not a proceeding in equity in the traditional sense.As said by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, speaking through the late Chief Justice Grafton Green in Lingner v. Lingner, 165 Tenn. 525, 530, 56 S.W.2d 749, 751: "Although a divorce suit is in the nature of a suit in equity * * * nevertheless a divorce suit is sui generis.The procedure is largely controlled by statute.Pleading and practice in divorce cases, as governed by statute, differ in many particulars from pleading and practice in equity cases generally. * * * `such cases stand upon grounds peculiar to themselves, and do not fall within the ordinary rules governing chancery proceedings.'Hackney v. Hackney, 28 Tenn.(9 Humph.)450."

If the Legislature of Tennessee had intended for an appeal in a divorce case to abrogate the decree of the trial court awarding custody of children, surely an express provision to that effect would have been written into the statute.T.C.A. § 36-828 negatives any legislative intent that decrees awarding custody of children and providing for their maintenance and support are abrogated by appeal.This statute states that "such decree shall remain within the control of the court and be subject to such changes or modification as the exigencies of the case may require," a provision which is incorporated into every divorce decree without express recitation therein.Davenport v. Davenport, 178 Tenn. 517, 160 S.W.2d 406.Under this...