Seaton v. Seaton, 4-9999
| Decision Date | 06 April 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9999,4-9999 |
| Parties | Ala Merl SEATON, Appellant, v. William A. SEATON, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
My dissent goes to the question of the legality and sufficiency of service on Mrs. Seaton. The majority opinion says, inter alia :
In the case cited in the above quotation--Schley v. Dodge, 206 Ark. 1151, 178 S.W.2d 851--we specifically pointed out that the petitioner did receive actual notice of the hearing. But in the case at bar, the petitioner did not have actual notice. Therefore, I think the statutory method of publication of warning order and appointment of an attorney ad litem, or the statutory method of non-resident service, 1 should have been followed in the case at bar as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the rendering of a decision in a matter as serious as depriving a mother of her children and the money for their support. I submit that some statutory method of obtaining service--rather than mere 'common practice'--should have been pursued before such an order could have been legally made.
The majority opinion says--in the last paragraph--that Mrs. Seaton may still petition the Pulaski Chancery Court for a change of the challenged order. I think it would be far more just and proper to hold that the questioned order was void because of insufficient notice on Mrs. Seaton; and then Mr. Seaton would be required to be the moving party in any further proceedings. Why cast the burden on Mrs. Seaton, when she received no notice of a hearing on the order here involved?
1 Section 27-354...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liebendorfer v. Gayle
...to reduce the alimony award by one of the parties who was before the divorce court. In Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778, 255 S.W.2d 954, 256 S.W.2d 555 (1953) a different situation was dealt with, at the same time that the rule of McCue v. McCue was reaffirmed. In Seaton v. Seaton the alimony......
-
Odom v. Odom, 58895
...La.App., 208 So.2d 395 (1968); People v. Rone, 3 III.2d 483, 121 N.E.2d 738 (1954); Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778, 255 S.W.2d 954, 256 S.W.2d 555 (1953); Call v. Call, 250 Iowa 1175, 98 N.W.2d 335 (1959); Anno.--Custody of Child Decree--Jurisdiction, 70 A.L.R. 526; R. Leflar, American Conf......
-
Kersh v. Kersh, 5--6227
...v. Holmes, 186 Ark. 251, 53 S.W.2d 226; Wilson v. Wilson, 186 Ark. 415, 53 S.W.2d 990; Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778, 255 S.W.2d 954 (256 S.W.2d 555).' See Law v. Law, 248 Ark. 894, 455 S.W.2d 854, and Powell v. Pearson, 251 Ark. 1107, 476 S.W.2d 802. See also Armstrong v. Armstrong, 248 A......
-
Law v. Law, 5--5257
...division of property. Our cases, McCue v. McCue, 210 Ark. 826, 197 S.W.2d 938 (1946); Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778, 255 S.W.2d 954, 256 S.W.2d 555 (1953); and Lively v. Lively, 222 Ark. 501, 261 S.W.2d 409 (1953), recognize that the parties do not always leave to the court the determinati......