Lambert v. Lambert
| Decision Date | 11 October 1888 |
| Citation | 16 Or. 485,19 P. 459 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. LAMBERT. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
When a decree is given dissolving a marriage the care and custody of the minor children should be given to the party not in fault unless there is evidence showing that it would be manifestly improper to do so, and a special finding of fact made by the court to that effect. [1]
In providing for the future care and custody of the minor children in such a case, the principal matter of consideration is what will be to their best interest and welfare, which should be paramount to every other motive or influence.1
Williams & Williams, for appellant.
Stott Waldo, Smith, Stott & Boise and Caples & Mulkey, for respondent.
This appeal is from a part of a decree rendered in a suit brought by the appellant against the respondent to obtain a divorce and to have the custody of their minor child, Albert Lambert a boy 10 years of age, awarded to him. The circuit court granted the appellant the divorce, but gave the custody of the child to the respondent, upon condition that she continue to reside in the city of Portland, and directed that the appellant pay to her five dollars a month for its support. It is also provided in the decree that the child shall not be removed from Multnomah county, and that the respondent execute a bond in the sum of $500, with sureties that she will not so remove it. The decree also contains a further provision that in case the respondent failed to comply with its terms in the particulars referred to, or if she changed her residence from said county, then the custody of the child should be given, without further order of the court, to J.H. Lambert, its grandfather. The appeal is from the part of the decree awarding the custody of the child to the respondent. The Code provides that whenever a marriage shall be declared void or dissolved the court shall have power to further decree, among other things, the care and custody of the minor children of the marriage, as it may deem just and proper, having due regard to the age and sex of such children, and, unless otherwise manifestly improper, give the preference to the party not in fault. Subd. 1, § 501, Code. There was no finding of fact in this case, nor any evidence therein showing that it would have been improper to give the care and custody of the minor child, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shrout v. Shrout
...the court in deciding what is best for the children. Cases in which this principle has been stated include the following: Lambert v. Lambert, 16 Or. 485, 19 P. 459; McKissick v. McKissick, 93 Or. 644, 653, 174 P. 721, 184 P. 272; Merges v. Merges, 94 Or. 246, 252, 186 P. 36; Johnson v. John......
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...Doozer v. Van Doozer, supra; Norcross v. Norcross, 176 Or. 1, 155 P. (2d) 562; Henry v. Henry, 156 Or. 679, 69 P. (2d) 280; Lambert v. Lambert, 16 Or. 485, 19 P. 459. 3. Moreover, appellant makes this concession in his brief: "The appellant has never questioned, and not now question, in any......
-
Wells v. Wells-Crawford
... ... subdivision 2 of the section ... It is ... urged by defendant that under the ruling in Lambert v ... Lambert, 16 Or. 485, 486, 19 P. 459, the trial court had ... no authority to award the custody of the children to the ... ...
-
Ex parte Barnes
...has the better right to its care and custody, unless he is manifestly an improper person to take charge of it. See, also, Lambert v. Lambert, 16 Or. 485, 19 P. 459; Bailey v. Bailey, 17 Or. 114, 19 P. 844. Neither it improper for petitioner to remove the child out of Oregon as Washington is......