Lanford v. Carruth, 5669.
| Decision Date | 12 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 5669.,5669. |
| Citation | 186 S.W.2d 368 |
| Parties | LANFORD et al. v. CARRUTH et al. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Potter County; Henry S. Bishop, Judge.
Suit by Myrtle Ruth Carruth and husband against Fred Lanford, Jr., and others for the custody of Richard Wesley Lanford, a minor. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Chas. H. Dean, of Plainview, for appellants.
Reeder & Reeder, of Amarillo, for appellees.
Appellee, Myrtle Ruth Carruth, joined by her husband, Vernon E. Carruth, instituted suit against Fred Lanford, Jr., and his parents, Fred Lanford, Sr., and wife, Sallie Lanford, for the custody of Richard Wesley Lanford, a four-year-old boy born to Myrtle Ruth Carruth and Fred Lanford, Jr., during their marriage.
The record discloses that the child's parents were married in 1939; that the child was born in 1940; that the parents were separated in 1942 and were divorced in 1943. The District Court of Hale County granted the divorce and the judgment recited in part, "In regard to the child, Richard Wesley Lanford, the parties have agreed as to its custody and no order is entered in reference to said child."
The record further reveals that the parents had previously agreed that the child's mother should have its custody at least a part of the time but she began working for her own support after the separation and left the child with its father, who soon remarried and he, his wife, and said child were living with his parents where the child's mother visited it frequently. She remarried late in 1943 and, feeling she was then able to care for the child, took and kept it for two weeks. She took the child to visit its father and paternal grandparents on November 11, 1943, when a controversy arose as to the custody of the child in which the grandparents participated out of which much unpleasantness grew, which resulted in the filing of this suit.
The case was tried before the court without a jury and judgment rendered awarding the custody of the child to its mother, from which judgment appellant, Fred Lanford, Jr., perfected an appeal to this court, executed a supersedeas bond, and held custody of the child during the appeal.
Appellant complains that the trial court's judgment is not supported by "substantial evidence" and that the trial court admitted improper evidence from the witness, Sallie Lanford, the child's paternal grandmother, during her cross-examination.
It was admitted by appellant that the parties were equally able financially to care for the child but appellant contends that appellee is not a fit and proper person to have the custody of the child and that appellant is a fit and proper person to have its custody. The evidence is strongly controverted on this issue but the trial court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and found against appellant on the issue. It found that the custody of the child had not been previously adjudicated; that appellee was fraudulently induced by appellant and his parents to leave the child with them for a short visit on November 11, 1943, and then kept the child and wrongfully prevented her from having its custody again; that appellee was a young woman enjoying good health, industrious, with a fair education, and of good moral character; that appellee's husband, Vernon E. Carruth, was in the U. S. Navy; that he was a young man of good health, industrious, and owned a good home in Houston, Texas, where he and appellee had lived prior to his entering recently into military service; that appellee was a fit and proper person to have the custody, care, and control of the child; that Vernon E. Carruth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beasley v. Beasley, 15300
...177 S.W.2d 296; Mayes v. Timmons, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 989; Spell v. Green, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 713; Lanford v. Carruth, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 368; Bartlett v. Bartlett, Tex.Civ.App., 293 S.W.2d 508; Sawyer v. Bezner, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 19; Cain v. Cain, Tex.Civ.App., 134 ......
-
Bartlett v. Bartlett, 6615
...preponderance of the evidence as to show an abuse of discretion. Kelly v. Applewhite, Tex.Civ.App., 231 S.W.2d 974; Lanford v. Carruth, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 368; Thompson v. Haney, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 491; Hall v. Dodson, Tex.Civ.App., 279 S.W.2d 558; Brillhart v. Brillhart, Tex.Ci......
-
Cuellar v. Flores
...v. Epstein, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 894; and Turk et al. v. McLure, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1049.' Pitts, C.J., in Lanford v. Carruth, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 368, 369. See also Wicks v. Cox, 146 Tex. 489, 208 S.W.2d 876, 4 A.L.R.2d The issue was clearly one for the trial judge and his dec......
-
Valentine v. Valentine, 5792.
...will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of this discretion is shown by a great preponderance of the evidence. Lanford v. Carruth, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 368; Thompson v. Haney, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 491, Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W.2d Did the trial court abuse its discr......