Payne v. Payne
| Decision Date | 14 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 38227,38227 |
| Citation | 58 So.2d 377 |
| Parties | PAYNE et ux. v. PAYNE. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Gilbert & Cameron, Meridian, for appellants.
Parker & Williamson, Meridian, for appellee.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding involving the custody of Jimmie Payne, a minor six years of age. The child's father is Dude Payne; his mother, Willie Mavis Payne, who is now known as Willie Mavis McClellan. Dude Payne and Willie Mavis Watson were married in Lauderdale County in 1942. The child was born July 9, 1942, while his parents were living in Cincinnati, Ohio. When the child was fourteen months old, the father and mother returned to Lauderdale County, Mississippi, and brought the child with them. Dude and Willie Mavis separated soon after their return to Mississippi, and in 1947 Willie Mavis obtained a divorce from her husband in the Chancery County of Lauderdale County. After her separation from her husband Willie Mavis left the child with her father, Luther Watson, and her stepmother, who resided in their own home in Kemper County, and Willie Mavis went back to Meridian to work. Sometime thereafter Dude went to the home of Willie Mavis' father and got the child and carried him to the home of Dude's father and mother, Rufus Payne and Marcella Payne, and Rufus and Marcella Kept the child in their home most of the time thereafter, apparently by agreement of both of the child's parents. In 1948 Willie Mavis married Rollie D. McClellan, and she and her husband were living in Chicago at the time of the filing of the petition herein. After moving to Chicago Willie Mavis continued to visit the child from time to time on her return trips to Mississippi; and the record shows that Willie Mavis sent the child small sums of money from time to time, and also some articles of clothing and other things.
Willie Mavis testified that the child had been with Dude's father and mother most of the time since she and Dude had separated, but she had never agreed to let the grandparents have the child permanently. In relating the circumstances that led up to the filing of the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, Willie Mavis said, She stated that she had written the respondents during the fall of 1949 that she expected to visit Mississippi again during the fall and that she intended to carry the child back home with her. After she came to Mississippi she was unable to get the child and had to return to Chicago without him. She returned to Mississippi again during the summer of 1950, and when she found out that she could not get the child any other way she filed her petition for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain legal custody of the child.
Willie Mavis testified that her husband had regular employment in Chicago and was making approximately $250 per month; that she and her husband lived in a comfortable apartment; and that her husband was willing for her to take the child back to Chicago to live with them. Several witnesses testified that the mother of the child was a woman of good character, and that she was a suitable and proper person to have the care and custody of the child. Dude Payne, the father of the child, was living in Ohio at the time of the trial. The proof showed that Rufus Payne and Marcella Payne, the respondents, were well respected members of the colored race; that they owned their own home and approximately 200 acres of land; that they had become very much attached to the child; and that the child was well cared for in their home.
The Court found that the child's grandparents were well able to take care of the child and that he would be in good hands if left in the home of either of them. The court found that the child had spent most of the time since the separation of his parents in the home of the respondents by mutual agreement of the father and the mother. The court found that the mother was a fit and proper person to have the custody, tuition and control of the child, that she was well able financially and otherwise to give the child the care and attention that he needed, and that she was entitled to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Lee
...County, Mississippi, Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 9-9-23 (1972); Cole v. Cole, 194 Miss. 292, 295, 12 So.2d 425, 426 (1943); Payne v. Payne, 58 So.2d 377, 378-79 (Miss.1952); Thibodeaux v. Hilliard, 287 So.2d 434 (Miss.1973), notwithstanding that the original custody decree had been entered by a cha......
-
Hendrix v. Hendrix
...76 A.L.R. 238; Bullard v. Welch, 1935, 171 Miss. 833, 158 So. 79; Ainsworth v. Boykin, 1945, 198 Miss. 756, 23 So.2d 297; Payne v. Payne, Miss.1952, 58 So.2d 377; Newman v. Young, 1952, 215 Miss. 467, 61 So.2d 296; Mayfield v. Braund, 1953, 217 Miss. 514, 64 So.2d 713, 65 So.2d 235; cf. Wal......
-
Newman v. Young
...over the right of the appellants, the grandparents of the child. Stegall v. Stegall, 151 Miss. 875, 119 So. 802, 803; Payne v. Payne, Miss., 58 So.2d 377. We are accordingly of the opinion that the decree of the court below should be and it is Affirmed. ROBERDS, P. J., and HALL, LEE and ARR......
-
Cox v. Cox
...citing Amis, Divorce and Separation in Miss., Section 225, quoted above, and Payne v. Payne, 213 Miss. 815, 58 So.2d 9; Id., Miss., 58 So.2d 377. And in the case of Montgomery v. Walker, supra, the Court further said: 'We could not consider appellee's petition as an independent one to decla......