McIntosh v. Meyer, 42072
| Decision Date | 02 April 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 42072,42072 |
| Citation | 139 So.2d 368,243 Miss. 596 |
| Parties | Elton Lorraine McINTOSH v. Janis May McIntosh MEYER. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
L. G. Fant, Jr., Holly Springs, for appellant.
Hugh N. Clayton, New Albany, for appellee.
This is a child custody proceeding brought in the Chancery Court of Marshall County, Mississippi. Appellant and appellee were husband and wife and had one child born unto them, James Hays McIntosh, a son. The parties were divorced and custody of their minor child was awarded to the mother. The father was directed to pay to the mother the sum of $150 per month for support of the child. Both appellee and appellant remarried. About the time appellee was to go on her honeymoon, appellant filed an application in vacation in the chancery court requesting the chancellor to grant him temporary custody of James Hays McIntosh. The petition alleged that conditions had changed since the granting of the original decree awarding custody of the child to appellee, and that it was urgent that custody of the child be changed to appellant. Many witnesses were offered by both sides at the vacation hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing the chancellor awarded temporary custody of the child to the mother, with liberal visitation privileges to the father.
The case was finally heard at the regular term of court. The evidence on the temporary hearing was, by agreement, incorporated in the final hearing, and additional witnesses were introduced. The chancellor again entered a decree awarding permanent custody of the child to the mother, but permitted visitation of the child with the father. The support for the child was reduced to $100. From this decree, the father appealed, and the mother cross-appealed on the ground that support of the child fixed by the court was an agreement between the parties in the original decree and should not have been reduced.
Appellant argues that appellee admitted the allegations of his petition requesting modification of the original divorce decree because she denied the charges in general terms throughout her answer to the original and supplemental petitions. We are of the opinion, however, that the authorities cited by appellant with reference to answers in chancery generally are not applicable in this case for the reason that the chancery court will look through the form of pleading in child custody cases to determine the best interest of the child. See Randall v. Randall, 28 So. 19 (Miss.); Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 176 Miss. 733, 170 So. 289. It will also be noted that Sec. 2737, Miss.Code 1942, Rec., expressly states that '(3) admissions made in the answer shall not be taken as evidence.'
The chancellor heard the testimony of many witnesses introduced in this case, and from a review of this evidence, it is apparent that he carefully examined all of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reno v. Reno
...the paramount duty of the court at all times being to do that which is for the best interest of the child. See McIntosh v. Meyer, 243 Miss. 596, 139 So.2d 368 (1962) and Mahaffey v. Mahaffey, 176 Miss. 733, 170 So. 289 Motion being filed herein by the appellant's attorneys for a fee in conn......
-
Vockroth v. Vockroth, s. 44586
...the decree and awarding custody to appellee, it must be reviewed in the light of the language of this Court in McIntosh v. Meyer, 243 Miss. 596, 139 So.2d 368 (1962), which 'The guilding star in child custody cases is that the court determine the best interest of the child. See Earwood v. C......