Kempson v. Goss
| Decision Date | 29 June 1901 |
| Citation | 64 S.W. 224 |
| Parties | KEMPSON v. GOSS et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, White county; Hance N. Hutton, Judge.
Action by one Goss and others against one Kempson. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed if a remittitur be made; otherwise, reversed.
Appellant intermarried with the mother of appellees after the death of their father, and moved upon the place left them by their father, which was their homestead. Here he lived, having voluntarily assumed the care and support of appellees, until about two months and ten days after the death of his wife, when he moved away from the place, leaving appellees living thereon. But he had planted a crop, and had rented out part of the place; and after moving away he continued to cultivate his crop, and gathered same, and collected the rents and profits for the year 1898. This suit is by appellees for the use and occupation of the land for the year 1898, alleging damages at $125. Appellant denied the claim of plaintiffs, and set up by way of set-off and counterclaim an account for the board of appellees, amounting to $46.60, and a cook stove and provisions, amounting to $24.27, and other articles of provisions and furniture, not itemized. The appellant testified as to the items set up in his counterclaim as follows: "After the death of my wife, the mother of the plaintiffs, I remained on the premises and cultivated my crop until I moved to my own home place, on the 9th day of July, 1898, which was 2 1/3 months, and during that time I boarded, clothed, and provided for all the plaintiffs, worth $5 per month for each of them; and when I moved I provided for them, and left with them one cook stove, worth $8; 123 lbs. of bacon, worth $9.66; 80 lbs of lard, worth $6.66; besides other provisions and household and kitchen furniture, worth at least $25 or $30." He also offered to prove these items and charges by other witnesses, which the court would not permit, to which ruling appellant duly saved his exceptions. The court also instructed the jury as follows, over appellant's objection: "The jury are instructed that it was the duty of the defendant to provide for the plaintiffs, who were minor children of his wife and members of his family, and it was his duty to provide for and take care of them without charging for board and the necessaries of life."
Ben Isbell, for appellant. Grant Green, for appellees.
WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).
In the absence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smiley v. Smiley
...said: " . . . . And, a stepfather is, of course, not bound to maintain the children of his wife by a former husband." In Kempson v. Goss, 69 Ark. 451, 64 S.W. 224, cited appellant, the court said: "In the absence of a statute requiring it, one is not bound to maintain the minor children of ......
- Kempson v. Goss