O'Kane v. Lyle
| Decision Date | 03 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 293 |
| Citation | 185 S.W. 281,123 Ark. 242 |
| Parties | O'KANE v. LYLE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court, Ozark District; W. A. Falconer Chancellor; reversed.
Decree reversed.
J. D Benson, Davis Partain, J. V. Bourland and J. D. Arbuckle, for appellant.
1. No change of circumstances was shown and the matter is res adjudicata. 55 Ark. 286; 66 Id. 336; 96 Id 540; 19 Id. 420; 55 Id. 536; 70 Id. 200.
2. The evidence does not support the decree. 53 S.W. 717.
Robert J. White, for appellee.
There was no abuse of judicial discretion. The former decree makes no provision for the support of the child and the decree is amply supported by the testimony. 140 S.W. 745; 111 Id. (Mo.) 579; 42 Ark. 495; 86 Id. 473.
The plaintiff and defendant were formerly husband and wife and were divorced by a decree rendered in July, 1912, by the chancery court of Franklin County, Arkansas, where they resided. There was one child, the issue of said inter-marriage, a girl, and the custody of the child was awarded to the plaintiff, Lizzie O'Kane, who has since inter-married with one Lyle. The defendant, Walter O'Kane, owned a large and valuable farm in Franklin County, one-third of which was awarded to the plaintiff as alimony by the same decree which granted the divorce. The decree did not specifically award anything to the plaintiff for the support of the child, but the plaintiff subsequently instituted this action in the chancery Court of Franklin County against her former husband to obtain a decree compelling him to pay a certain sum of money monthly for the support of the child. The defendant pleaded the former adjudication in bar of the right to recover anything now in addition to what was awarded in the former decree. The plaintiff alleged in her complaint that the failure of the court to specify in the former decree a sum to be paid to the plaintiff for support of the child was an inadvertence, and she prays that that be corrected by a decree granting that relief. The cause was heard by the chancellor on oral testimony, which has been preserved in a bill of exceptions, and the court rendered a decree directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $ 25.00 per month, beginning from the date of the original decree. The defendant has appealed to this court.
It appears from the testimony that the only property owned by either of the parties is that which they owned at the time of the original decree, and that the defendant's portion of the farm, which was not taken away from him by the decree has a rental value of about $ 7,000.00 per...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Jackson
...child in a contest brought before it. 37 Ark. 30; 106 Ark. 203. The court may also order a change of custody for good cause. 118 Ark. 582; 123 Ark. 242; 124 Ark. 579; Ark. 366; 106 Ark. 203. The father, unless incompetent and unfit, is the natural guardian and entitled to the custody of his......
-
Riegler v. Riegler
... ... 439] change in circumstances as would justify a reduction in these amounts. See O'Kane v. Lyle, 123 Ark. 242, 185 ... S.W. 281. While appellant has assumed the support of his current wife and her children, he has not shown that this burden ... ...
-
Watnick v. Bockman
... ... allowance of maintenance, and will do so upon a showing of ... changed conditions. O'Kane v. Lyle, 123 ... Ark. 242, 185 S.W. 281; Shue v. Shue, 162 ... Ark. 216, 258 S.W. 128; Wilson v. Wilson, ... 186 Ark. 415, 53 S.W.2d 990. See, also, 17 ... ...
-
Weatherton v. Taylor
... ... changed at any future time by the chancellor for cause." ... In the recent case of O'Kane v. Lyle, ... 123 Ark. 242, 185 S.W. 281, we held that it was error for the ... chancery [124 Ark. 584] court to change an order concerning ... an ... ...