Pearce v. Pearce
| Citation | 136 Ala. 188,33 So. 883 |
| Parties | PEARCE v. PEARCE. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1903 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Chancery Court, Walker County; John C. Carmichael Chancellor.
Petition by May E. Pearce against J. G. Pearce. Decree in favor of petitioner, and respondent appeals. Affirmed.
The petition averred that petitioner and the respondent were married in 1898, and lived together as husband and wife until June, 1900; that a child was born to them, who at the time of the filing of the petition was about two years old; that in June, 1900, on account of the wrongful acts perpetrated upon the petitioner by her husband, there was a voluntary separation between them, and they had not since lived together as husband and wife; that the respondent, J. Gus Pearce, upon such separation, refused to permit or allow the petitioner to have the custody and control of her said child that said J. Gus Pearce was not a suitable or proper person to have the control and custody of said child, nor was he such person as should have superintendence of its education and rearing; that he did not have the prudence, ability, or fitness, by reason of his immorality and recklessness, to be intrusted with the custody of such child. The petition then averred that the petitioner was a suitable person to have the custody and control of said child, and to be intrusted with the superintendence of its education. The prayer of the petition was that the respondent, J. Gus Pearce, be required to deliver up the custody of the said child to the petitioner, and that the chancellor render such order and decrees as would protect the petitioner in the custody control, and education of such child. This petition was demurred to on the ground that no facts were stated showing that the respondent was not a suitable person to have the custody of the child, and on the further ground that the petition was filed by a married woman, and was not brought by her next friend, and no reason was shown why she did not sue by her next friend. The respondent filed a plea of res adjudicata, the substance of which is set out in the opinion. There was a demurrer to this plea on the ground that such plea presented no answer or defense to the plea. This demurrer was sustained.
Coleman & Bankhead and W. C. Davis, for appellant.
M. B McCollum and D. A. McGregor, for appellee.
A petition by the wife, under section 2536 of the Code, is properly filed in her own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.C. v. State Department of Human Resources
...Brown v. Brown, 2 Ala.App. 461, 466, 56 So. 589, 591 (1911); Saunders v. Saunders, 166 Ala. 351, 52 So. 310 (1910); Pearce v. Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 33 So. 883, 884 (1903); and Woodruff v. Conley, 50 Ala. 304 17. See also Ex parte State Dep't of Human Res., 624 So.2d 589, 593 (Ala. 1993); Fi......
-
Gallant v. Gallant
... ... See Pearce v. Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 190, 33 So. 883, 884 (1903). Hence, the law became that a prior custody judgment could be modified based only on a material ... ...
-
Easterling v. Caton, 5 Div. 543
... ... Woodruff v. Conley, 50 Ala. 304; Pearce v. Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 33 So. 883; Bridges v. Bridges, supra ... 'It is no objection to the bill, then, that it is an independent suit in the same ... ...
-
Burns v. Shapley
... ... that court, placed himself in contempt of court. McGough ... v. McGough, 136 Ala. 170, 33 So. 860; Pearce v ... Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 33 So. 883; 22 Cyc. 519, 520 ... the ... learned trial judge held that the removal of the children out ... ...