Johnson v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 29 November 1947
• Citation: 206 S.W.2d 400,185 Tenn. 400
• Parties: JOHNSON v. JOHNSON et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

206 S.W.2d 400

185 Tenn. 400

JOHNSON v. JOHNSON et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 29, 1947

Appeal from Chancery Court, Anderson County; Wm. I. Davis, Jr. Judge, sitting by interchange.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Holsey H. Johnson against Hellen Johnson and another to recover custody of the minor daughter of the named parties.Custody of the child was awarded to the named defendant and the writ dismissed, and plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with opinion.

Jennings, O'Neil & Jarvis, of Knoxville, and Tom R. Chadwick, of Clinton, for appellant.

Walter E. Fischer, of Clinton, for appellee.

TOMLINSON Justice.

This is a contest between the parents for the custody of their little daughter, Edna Johnson, now about seven years of age.The parents were divorced by decree of the Circuit Court of Union County on February 20, 1945.That decree awarded the custody of the little girl to the father.Both parents subsequently married and live in different counties.The present suit was originated by the father filing on March 11, 1946 a perition for writ of habeas corpus in the Chancery Court of Anderson County, the respondents therein named being the mother and aunt of the little girl.The petition alleged the holding and adjudication of this divorce decree and that the little girl was being illegally withheld from the father, notwithstanding said decree.Answer or return to the petition was made by respondents and the matter finally heard and determined by the Chancery Court of Anderson County on May 15, 1946.Between the time of the filing of the petition and this decision of the Courtthe parties engaged in various legal maneuvers which resulted in the delivery of the little girl first to one and then the other of the contestants until it fairly well appears that the little girl is a victim of this contest.The holding of the Chancery Court in Anderson County was that 'there is a change of status' since the rendition of the Union County Circuit Court decree awarding custody to the father and awarded custody to the mother, and ordered that the child be forth-with delivered to her and the writ dismissed.Presumably, the child is now in the actual custody of her mother, Mrs. Hellen Henry.The father, Holsey H. Johnson, has appealed and assigns errors here.

The decree of the Anderson County Chancery Court recites that the hearing was had on the pleadings, 'the deposition of the witness Leoma Clowers, and the oral testimony of witnesses in open court'.This decree recites that the 'exhibits are, and have been identified by the court'.The father filed his bill of exceptions within the required time.That bill of exceptions recites that 'this was all the evidence heard in this cause'.It does not contain the deposition of Leoma Clowers, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that this deposition was filed so as to make it a part of the record under the statute without the necessity of being included in the bill of exceptions.This bill of exceptions also at its close recites 'here insert in full the findings of the court, including all exhibits, decrees etc'.There are no exhibits in the bill of exceptions or transcript which are identified or authenticated by the signature of the Chancellor.There is in the record a paper purporting to be a decree of the Circuit Court of Union County adjudicating those issues between these parties.This paper recites on its face that it was filed in the habeas corpus proceedings, but it is not identified or authenticated as being an exhibit to the testimony of any witness, and it does not so show upon its face.By reason of the status of the above detailed condition of the bill of exceptions, the mother, Mrs. Hellen Johnson Henry, has made a motion to strikethe bill of exceptions on the ground that the record affirmatively discloses that it does not contain all the evidence.We think this motion well taken and the bill of exceptions is accordingly stricken.This action is not, however, conclusive of this case for reasons hereinafter stated.

A motion for a new trial was filed on August 9, 1946, but in so far as the record discloses was never acted upon.The decree appealed from was entered on August 5, 1946.The insistence made by the appelleemother that the motion for a new trial is no properly in the transcript is not material here, since 'a motion for new trial in habeas corpus proceeding is not necessary to review in reviewing court.'State ex rel. v. Head,182 Tenn. 249, 250, 185 S.W.2d 530.

The decree entered in the habeas corpus proceedings recites that 'there is a change of status since the rendition of a divorce decree by the Union County Circuit Court in February 1945 in favor of Complainant, which decree awarded custody of the child, Edna Johnson, to Holsey Johnson, the father, and complainant in that case, and who is the complainant here.'It must be conclusively presumed upon this appeal that this recitation in the Anderson County Chancery Court decree was based on proper and sufficient proof.It was held in Bales v. Bales,182 Tenn. 600, at page 605, 188 S.W.2d 601, at page 603, that 'in the absence of a valid bill of exceptions, it is presumed that the chancellor's decree was based on proper and sufficient proof'.On the same point it was held in State ex rel. v. Cocke,167 Tenn. 253, at page 256, 68 S.W.2d 933, 934, that the recitation of the judgment based upon oral testimony on which there was an appeal...