Porter v. Porter
| Citation | 216 Ala. 169,112 So. 646 |
| Decision Date | 09 December 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 561 |
| Parties | PORTER v. PORTER. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied May 12, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William M. Walker Judge.
Petition of Adaline Culp Porter for modification of the decree in the divorce case of Henry J. Porter, Jr., against Adaline Culp Porter. From a decree modifying the former decree complainant Henry J. Porter, Jr., appeals and petitions for mandamus. Appeal dismissed; mandamus awarded.
Cabaniss Johnston, Cocke & Cabaniss, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Black & Fort and G. Ernest Jones, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The right to review on motion for mandamus is supported by the authorities. Ex parte Jackson, 212 Ala. 496, 103 So. 558; Ex parte Tower Mfg. Co., 103 Ala. 415, 15 So. 836.
After the divorce which made provision for the infants, the wife and mother sought modification of the decree so that she might have the children a part of the time, which was granted. The testimony was heard before the court ore tenus, and the exercise of a sound judicial discretion is challenged. Was the modified decree with due regard to the rights of the respective litigants and in harmony with the principles that in the matter of the temporary or permanent custody of infants their well-being and best interest should be the determining factor? The paramount consideration and guide to the court in the premises is the good of the children. McDaniel v. Youngblood, 201 Ala. 260, 77 So. 674; Pearce v. Pearce, 136 Ala. 188, 33 So. 883; McGough v. McGough, 136 Ala. 170, 33 So. 860; Hayes v. Hayes, 192 Ala. 280, 68 So. 351.
We have been exhorted to read all the evidence and the many letters exhibited as evidence. This has been done. It is a sad story of domestic infelicity and children periodically subjected to divided authority and example. And, as to the children and the parties, and, it may be, third persons, troubles may arise from acts committed by themselves, but the most cautious and blameless conduct cannot always secure against trouble. When troubles come, whether by one's own fault or not, confidence in the Divine Law will alleviate them and often be conducive to a better and more blameless and unselfish life.
There is no res judicata as to the status and best interest of infants in a case like this, touching, as it does, the temporary or permanent custody of them; the necessities of the case keep...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wise v. Watson
...during their infancy. Ex parte Ingalls, 256 Ala. 305, 54 So.2d 288; Bridges v. Bridges, 227 Ala. 144, 148 So. 816; Porter v. Porter, 216 Ala. 169, 112 So. 646. The separation agreement which appears to have been influenced by conciliatory negotiation between the Watsons became merged into t......
-
Moss v. Ingram
... ... was rendered prior to the decree of the Mississippi court ... While it was not necessary to do so (Porter v ... Porter, 216 Ala. 169, 112 So. 646), the Alabama court, ... as if to emphasize the matter, expressly retained ... jurisdiction to make ... ...
-
Knowles v. Knowles
...Needless to say, this decree is not final in the sense that it is unchangeable if future events should warrant a change. Porter v. Porter, 216 Ala. 169, 112 So. 646. GARDNER, C. J., and THOMAS and FOSTER, JJ., concur. ...
-
Sneed v. Sneed
...within the jurisdiction where the orders of the court can more effectively be enforced may in some cases be desirable. Porter v. Porter, 216 Ala. 169, 112 So. 646. And requirement of security before the child is removed from the jurisdiction is sometimes wise. 17 Am.Jur. p. 513. The court r......