Jewett v. Jewett
| Decision Date | 29 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 5725. |
| Citation | 237 P. 702,73 Mont. 591 |
| Parties | JEWETT v. JEWETT. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; C. W. Pomeroy, Judge.
Suit by Edith Sarah Jewett against Leonard C. Jewett. Subsequent to a degree granting a divorce to defendant, he filed a petition to modify the decree fixing custody of the children, and the plaintiff answered and filed a counter petition. From a decree modifying the former decree, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Walchli & Korn, of Kalispell, for appellant.
H. G Pomeroy, of Eureka, and James M. Blackford, of Libby, for respondent.
On June 21, 1920, a decree was duly given and made in the district court of Lincoln county, granting Leonard C. Jewett a divorce from his wife, Edith Sarah Jewett. The parties had two children, Miriam Edna Jewett and Leonard George Jewett, then aged 5 and 4 years, respectively. In the decree of divorce the custody of these children was awarded to the father Leonard C. Jewett, with the provision that plaintiff "shall have the right to visit said children at their home at any reasonable time; and the further provision that for not exceeding three months in any one year, commencing with the year 1921, plaintiff shall have the right to have the children come and visit her at any place within the state of Montana;" and further "that said minor children shall, at all times, be kept within the jurisdiction of this court, subject, however, to the right to take them out of the jurisdiction of this court for good cause shown on application to the court therefor." The court made a finding to the effect that each of the parties was a fit and proper person to have the custody of the children. At the time of the entry of this decree, the mother had been separated from her husband for some time, and was dependent upon her own efforts for support and maintenance, and had no established home of her own. The father was then, and for a long time prior thereto had been, employed as a bookkeeper for lumber companies operating at Eureka, where the parties resided, at a substantial salary, had an established home, and was able to care for and support the children by the employment of a housekeeper, and continued to do so down to the time of the modification of the decree hereinafter mentioned.
On November 1, 1924, the father filed a petition in the divorce proceeding, wherein he set forth, among other things, that during all the times since the date of the decree of divorce he had been employed by lumber companies at Eureka, but "that said lumber industry at Eureka has now ceased, and that your petitioner will soon be out of employment at said place, and it will be necessary for him to go elsewhere to find employment; that he is an expert bookkeeper by trade and profession, and that it will not be possible for him to find suitable work in said locality, and that he expects shortly to leave for and locate at some point on the Pacific Coast in either the state of Washington or the state of Oregon, in order to obtain suitable employment; that he has no means of supporting himself or said children except through salary received by reason of his employment, and that it will be impracticable to keep said children at Eureka or within the state of Montana, and that it is necessary and to the best interest and welfare of said children that your petitioner be permitted and authorized to take said children with him to the coast or such other point where he may find suitable employment, and that therefore it is necessary and proper that said decree...
To continue reading
Request your trial