Luellen v. Younger
| Decision Date | 21 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | 23,996 |
| Citation | 133 N.E. 495,194 Ind. 411 |
| Parties | Luellen v. Younger |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
January 4, 1922;
From Morgan Circuit Court; Alfred M. Bain, Judge.
Action by Charles M. Luellen against Charles E. Younger and his wife, Maria Younger, for a writ of habeas corpus for the possession of his infant daughter. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Evans & DeWitt and S. C. Kivett, for appellant.
Joseph W. Williams and Homer Elliott, for appellees.
OPINION
On Motion to Strike Out Assignment of Errors.
Per Curiam. --The motion for a new trial in this case was overruled on April 4, 1921, at which time a term appeal was granted, and an appeal bond was thereafter filed on April 30 and the transcript and assignment of errors on June 28. Appellant filed a printed brief on August 17, and a printed "amended brief" on September 10. Each of these recited that the "errors relied on for reversal" included that-- , which is a substantial copy of the assignment of errors as it now appears in the transcript, except that the statement that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial appears as the fourth assignment of errors, and that one specification in the motion is that the finding is not "sustained" by sufficient evidence. On October 13, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and on October 18, appellant filed a verified motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors, with an acknowledgement, signed by the attorneys for appellees, of service of notice for October 25, "by leaving a copy of said notice and a copy of the accompanying petition with us." The motion for leave to amend asserted, under oath, that the assignment of errors contained the four specifications above set out, in substance as printed in the briefs, except that they were numbered differently. Appellees did not appear to this motion, but it was overruled October 27, the court being influenced by the fact that the assignment contained the fourth specification.
Four weeks later, on November 25, appellee filed a motion to strike out from the assignment of errors the specification that "the court erred in overruling motion for a new trial" which is written with a pen, while the other three specifications are typewritten, and, in support of the motion, filed affidavits that this specification was not in the assignment of errors when it was examined by counsel on October 13, at the time the motion to dismiss was prepared and filed. A counter affidavit by counsel for the appellant states that he noticed the failure of the typewritten assignment of errors, as originally prepared, to specify the overruling of the motion for a new trial as error, and wrote in that specification with a pen before the cause was submitted (which was on July 28), as preliminary to preparing the brief, filed August 17.
Upon this conflict of statements by counsel, we must decline to pass upon the disputed question of fact. That the assignment sought to be stricken out appears in the printed brief lends some support to the position of appellant, while other facts tend to support the appellees. But we do not think we should decide the question presented. If the statements in the brief and in appellant's verified motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors that one specification of such motion was that "the court erred in overruling motion for a new trial" were erroneous, appellees should have challenged them promptly, and not have waited until nearly a month after the court had ruled on said motion, being more than three months after appellant's original brief was filed, and two and a half months after he filed his amended brief. Appellees did not file a brief until December 5, but no reason is made to appear why they did not challenge the statement in appellant's motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors before the court had made a ruling based upon what the verified motion stated and the facts shown by the transcript indicated to be true at the time that ruling was made.
Appellee's motion to strike out the fourth specification of the assignment of errors is overruled.
On the Merits.
Travis, J.--This is an action by appellant against appellees for a writ of habeas corpus to regain the possession of his infant daughter, Arthela D. Luellen. A trial upon the writ and the return thereto resulted in the finding and judgment for the appellees. Appellant filed his motion for a new trial for the causes, that the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and was contrary to law. The action of the court in overruling this motion is assigned as error.
The subject of this inquiry was born May 11, 1915, five years after the marriage of the father, this appellant, and mother, and was left motherless seventeen days after her birth. Appellees, Maria Younger and Charles E. Younger her husband, are the sister and brother-in-law respectively of the deceased mother. Four weeks after the funeral of the mother, appellant placed the infant in the custody of appellees, after they had told him, "I want it distinctly understood that if the baby lived and became attached to us that they would never separate, and he said he would never do it." It has been in their custody ever since, except a few visits to its father in Mooreland, Indiana. Appellant's relations had refused to take the infant unless they might adopt it, which the father refused to consent to do. The infant was not robust the first two years of its life, on which account, appellees gave it special watchful care, and prepared special food for it. Part of this time, the baby was under the care of physicians. The appellee aunt of the infant was twenty years the senior of her deceased sister, and cared for her and nurtured her to womanhood after the death of their mother, which occurred when appellant's wife was two and one-half years of age. Appellees, the aunt and uncle of the infant, were sixty and fifty-five years of age respectively when the baby was given into their custody. At that time and at the time of the trial, they had no children of their own. They owned their own home in Martinsville, which was a dwelling of seven rooms equipped with furnace and bath. Appellant is fifty-three years of age and owns a dwelling and large lot of the value of $ 4,500, but lives with his maiden sister, fifty years of age, in Mooreland, Indiana. This sister owns her own home, which is comfortable, and has property to the value of $ 15,000. She was willing to take this child into her home, and rear and care for it, in order that it might be with its father. She had had the experience of rearing two boys, one a nephew, and had cared for a sister's children at times. The moral character of appellant and of each of the appellees is good. The ability of either appellant or appellees to bear the burden financially to rear this child to womanhood is admitted. Appellant had given to appellees the aggregate sum of $ 582 to pay for the expense of the child. Appellees taught the child to call its father "papa", and made no attempt to estrange it from its father.
Appellant makes the proposition that he is entitled to the custody of his minor child under the statute, "The father of such minor * * * shall have the custody of the person and control of the education of such minor", (§ 3065 Burns 1914, § 2518 R. S. 1881) which is an assertion of the common-law right of a father to the custody of his child, and cites many cases besides the cases in this state in support of his right under this statute. In oral argument, appellant made the further proposition that this court, in considering the appeal, had the right to weigh the evidence for the reason that the Supreme Court will weigh the evidence if necessary in appeals wherein habeas corpus is involved. Upon the application for writ of habeas corpus to be admitted to bail, it has been held that the Supreme Court upon appeal will weigh the evidence and pass on it as a trial court. Ex parte Moore (1868), 30 Ind 197; Ex parte Sutherlin...
To continue reading
Request your trial