Stanfield v. Stanfield
Decision Date | 16 November 1908 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 875 Ind Ter T |
Citation | 1908 OK 228,22 Okla. 574,98 P. 334 |
Parties | STANFIELD v. STANFIELD. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. DIVORCE--Custody of Children--Modification of Decree After Term. Where, on the trial of a motion, filed by the father after the term, asking for the modification of a decree of divorce granting the custody of children to the mother, the evidence fails to show a change of condition from that which existed at the time of its rendition, other than that the mother, who had theretofore kept the children within the jurisdiction of the court, had, at the time of the hearing of said motion, departed with them from the jurisdiction, and where the father, who asked their custody, testifies he has no home to which they may be taken, but that he intends to remove them from the court's jurisdiction and place them with his elderly father and stepmother, Held, that the court exceeded its discretion in setting aside such decree and unqualifiedly awarding the custody of the children to the father.
2. SAME--Modification--Affecting Alimony. Where, in a case a divorce is decreed, for the aggression of the husband, and alimony is adjudged to the wife in accordance with an agreement of the parties, duly entered into and made a part of such decree, the same, unaffected by fraud or mistake, is not subject to modification, upon motion filed by the former husband, after the term at which the original decree was made.
Error from the United States Court for the Northern District of the Indian Territory; Joseph A. Gill, Judge.
Action by Winifred T. Stanfield against Wade S. Stanfield. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
From the record in this case it develops that the plaintiff, Winifred T. Stanfield, appellant, brought her suit in the United States Court for the Northern District of Indian Territory at Vinita, against the appellee, Wade S. Stanfield, for divorce and alimony, and that an agreement was entered into between the said parties providing for the support, care, and custody of the two children of the said marriage, which were boys, and of the ages at this time, if living, about 13 and 16 years, and in addition, for alimony to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant in the sum of $ 150 per month, with additional allowances in case of sickness, and a proviso for its increase in event of the accumulation of greater wealth by defendant, provided, plaintiff remained single and unmarried. The decree, based upon the issues in the cause and this stipulation, is as follows:
About seven months thereafter, the defendant, desiring to be relieved of the payment of the alimony provided for under his stipulation and the decree, filed in the same court the following sworn application:
At the time of filing the foregoing application, the defendant ceased paying the alimony provided for. No action having been taken upon this application, the defendant filed the following amendment to the same on January 22, 1907:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
North v. North
...116 S.E. 482; Emerson v. Emerson, 120 Md. 584; Pryor v. Pryor, 88 Ark. 302, 114 S.W. 700, 129 Am. St. Rep. 102, 108-9; Stanfield v. Stanfield, 22 Okla. 574, 98 P. 334; Carr v. Carr (Iowa), 171 785; Savage v. Savage, 141 F. 346.] Some decisions say, without explanation, that an agreement bet......
-
North v. North
...Am. St. Rep. 109; Carpenter v. Osborn, 102 N.Y. 552, 7 N.E. 823; Julier v. Julier, 62 Ohio St. 90, 78 Am. St. Rep. 698; Stanfield v. Stanfield, 22 Okla. 584, 98 Pac. 334; Hartigan v. Hartigan, 142 Minn. 274, 171 N.W. 925; Carr v. Carr, 171 N.W. 785; Savage v. Savage, 141 Fed. 346; Morris v.......
-
Culbertson v. Jones
...of substantial and material change of facts. See Jackson v. Jackson, 200 Okla. 333, 193 P.2d 561; 17 Am. Jur. § 684; Stanfield v. Stanfield, 22 Okla. 574, 98 P. 334. ¶10 It is suggested that the trial court erred in denying a request that he interview the child. No effort was made to call t......
-
Wilson v. Wilson
...[sic] of the wife. . . will not relieve the husband of the payment of alimony in accordance with the decree. Stanfield v. Stanfield, 22 Okla. 574, 98 P. 334, 339 (1908). The finding of a non-spousal menage simply authorizes an inquiry into the recipient spouse's then financial circumstances......