Mayfield v. Braund, 38741
| Decision Date | 08 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 38741,38741 |
| Citation | 217 Miss. 514,65 So.2d 235 |
| Parties | MAYFIELD v. BRAUND et ux. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Fred M. Belk, Holly Springs, Price & McIlwain, Greenville, John B. Farese, Ashland, Byrd P. Mauldin, Pontotoc, for appellant.
Kermit R. Cofer, Water Valley, Smith & Hurdle, Holly Springs, for appellees.
It is urged in the brief of the appellees on this suggestion of error that in view of the fact that in the former opinion herein this Court stated that the case had been tried in the court below on the wrong theory, and that, therefore, we should have reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial in order that it could be decided on the correct theory.
The contention of the appellees is based on the fact that it was stated in the former opinion that the trial judge made no affirmative finding in his written opinion rendered at the conclusion of all of the evidence to the effect that the appellant, James A. Mayfield, Jr., had either abandoned or deserted the children, or either of them, or is mentally or morally unfit to rear and train them. However, the former opinion went further and recognized that in the final decree the trial judge adjudicated that 'the defendant J. A. Mayfield, Jr., has, because of his moral unfitness and because of his abandonment and desertion of said minors, forfeited such right as he might otherwise have to their custody * * *.' We reversed the case and rendered a final judgment here for the reason that we were of the opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the above adjudication.
Except for the fact that the trial court did in its final decree make the adjudication last above quoted, there might be a good deal of merit in the contention that the case should be remanded in order that the trial court could make a finding of fact on the issue of abandonment or moral unfitness. But we think that the final decree is controlling as to what the trial court actually held, and that the issue on which the appellees asked for the case to be remanded for an adjudication has already been decided in the decree appealed from.
Suggestion of error overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brassiell v. Brassiell
...See also Western Union Telegraph Company v. Goodman, 166 Miss. 782, 146 So. 128. In Mayfield v. Braund, 217 Miss. 514, 64 So.2d 713, 714, 65 So.2d 235, it is said: 'The right to adopt a child or children did not exist at common law, and was first conferred by statute * * *'. And it was held......
-
Adoption of a Minor, Matter of
...v. Brassiell, 228 Miss. 243, 87 So.2d 699 (1956); Mayfield v. Braund, 217 Miss. 514, 64 So.2d 713 (1953), sugg. err. o'ruled 217 Miss. 514, 65 So.2d 235 (1953). Statutes authorizing adoptions have been in effect in this state for well over a century. Adams v. Adams, 102 Miss. 259, 59 So. 84......
-
Litton v. Litton
...illhealth for sometime thereafter. This testimony is undisputed. While the case of Mayfield v. Braund, 217 Miss. 514, 64 So.2d 713, 721, 65 So.2d 235, was an adoption proceeding, nevertheless the question of what constitutes an abandonment of a child by its natural parent was therein discus......
-
Yarber, Matter of
...been clearly proved. See Schillereff v. Adamany, 240 Miss. 275, 127 So.2d 392 (1961); Mayfield v. Braund, 217 Miss. 514, 64 So.2d 713, 65 So.2d 235 (1953); Hibbette v. Baines, 78 Miss. 695, 29 So. 80, 54 L.R.A. 839 (1900).' 211 So.2d at The chancellor held the appellant exhibited a callous ......