Lassiter v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 29 June 1922 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 973. |
| Parties | LASSITER v. WILSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A. B. Foster, Judge.
Petition by Richard Wilson against J. F. Lassiter for modification of former decree as to custody of children. From a decree overruling demurrers to the petition respondent appeals. Affirmed.
A. G Seay, of Troy, for appellant.
J. A Carnley, of Elba, for appellee.
The appellee, Wilson, filed his petition in the circuit court of Coffee county, in equity; the appellant is named respondent thereto. The petitioner's (appellee's) residence is averred to be in Coffee county, Ala.; and the residence of appellant is Pike county, Ala. The prayer is that appellant (Lassiter) "be notified to appear and answer this petition and show cause, if any he has, why the decree of this court should not be modified and another decree entered awarding the custody and control of said children to petitioner, their father. ***" A copy of the decree referred to is exhibited with the petition. Its date is January 29, 1918. It is a decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony between petitioner and Exa Wilson, on the ground of the husband's (present petitioner) cruelty to complainant, the wife. Without qualification the decree awarded the custody and control of the two young children to Exa Wilson. The decree contains no indication of the court's intention to retain the cause or proceeding for other or further order or decree as was the case in the decree considered in Hayes v. Hayes, 192 Ala. 280 68 So. 351; neither did it contain any restriction or limitation upon the place of habitation of the mother or of the children. It appears from the petition that Exa Wilson subsequently again married; that petitioner has also again married; that Exa Wilson died in April, 1921; and that, after the death of the mother, these children passed into and are now in the custody of their grandfather, the appellant, who resides in Pike county. Appearing specially, appellant demurred to the petition, and also interposed plea in abatement, questioning in both instances the jurisdiction of the circuit court (in equity) of Coffee county to entertain the petition when, as is averred in the petition, the children are in the custody of their grandfather in another county, viz. Pike county. Upon consideration the court overruled the demurrer, and in order held the plea in abatement insufficient, thereby, of course, affirming the jurisdiction of the circuit court (in equity) of Coffee county.
Where jurisdiction of a court has once attached the right exclusively to pursue and exercise its adequate jurisdiction to complete performance cannot be arrested or taken away by proceeding in another court of like authority. 3 Mich. Ala. Dig. pp. 760, 761, collating the cases. The circuit court (in equity) of Coffee county had jurisdiction to render the decree of January 29, 1918, including the provision for the custody of the children of the marriage thereby dissolved.
Jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chestang v. Tensaw Land & Timber Co.
...notwithstanding their character is such as would have prevented jurisdiction originally attaching.' McClellan, J., in Lassiter v. Wilson, 207 Ala. 669, 93 So. 598. 'When jurisdiction has attached the court has a right to decide every question duly presented and arising on the case; the hear......
-
Staats v. Co-operative Transit Co.
... ... subsequent events in the case. Brown v. Kellogg, 182 ... Mass. 297, 65 N.E. 378; Anderson v. Wilson, 100 Ind ... 402; Cobb v. Garlington, 100 S.C. 51, 84 S.E. 302; ... Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410; Curry v ... McCaffery, 47 Mont. 191, 131 P. 3; Lassiter v ... Wilson, 207 Ala. 669, 93 So. 598; Lofton v ... Collins, 117 Ga. 434, 43 S.E. 708, 61 L.R.A. 150; ... Neale v. Utz, 75 Va. 480; Metcalf v ... ...
-
Staats v. Co-Operative Transit Co.
...v. Garlington, 100 S. C. 51, 84 S. E. 302; Estes v. Martin, 34 Ark. 410; Curry v. McCaffery, 47 Mont. 191, 131 P. 673; Lassiter v. Wilson, 207 Ala. 669, 93 So. 598; Lofton v. Collins, 117 Ga. 434, 43 S. E. 708, 61 L. R. A. 150; Neale v. Utz, 75 Va. 480; Metcalf v. Hale, 42 Ga. App. 402, 156......
-
Vaughan v. Vaughan, 2 Div. 359
... ... Lassiter v. Wilson, 207 Ala. 669, 93 So. 598; Burns v. Shapley, 16 Ala.App. 297, 77 So. 447.' See Little v. Little, 249 Ala. 144, 30 So.2d 386, 171 A.L.R ... ...
-
You be the judge: avoiding attorney discipline by taking the bench: Ex parte Alabama State Bar.
...R. DISC., 1 (a)(l) (stating that lawyers are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alabama State Bar). (128) See Lassiter v. Wilson, 93 So. 598, 598 (Ala. 1922) (stating that jurisdiction, once acquired, cannot be defeated by subsequent events); see also Rush v. Simpson, 373 So.2d. 1......