Stanfield v. Stanfield

Decision Date16 November 1908
Docket NumberCase Number: 875 Ind Ter T
Citation1908 OK 228,22 Okla. 574,98 P. 334
PartiesSTANFIELD v. STANFIELD.
CourtOklahoma Supreme Court
Syllabus

¶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:

"Upon the complaint of Winifred, T. Stanfield this cause came on for hearing, the defendant being personally present, and the plaintiff by her attorney, and the court being sufficiently advised, from the deposition of plaintiff and the examination of witnesses, that plaintiff and defendant were married in the state of Missouri on the 26th day of June, 1889; that they each now reside, and have continuously resided, in the Indian Territory for more than one year next before the commencement of this action; that the cause of divorce, set out in plaintiff's complaint, occurred and has existed in the Indian Territory within five years next before the commencement of this action. The court being further advised from the evidence that such incompatibility of temper exists between plaintiff and defendant as to render them wholly unsuited for each other; that the defendant has offered such indignities to the person of the plaintiff as to render her condition as wife intolerable; that said indignities began about the year 1896, and have continued up to the present time; that since said date plaintiff and defendant have occupied separate rooms and beds, and have not cohabited as husband and wife--it is therefore decreed, ordered, and adjudged that the bond of matrimony heretofore existing between plaintiff and the defendant be, and the same is forever dissolved, and the plaintiff is granted an absolute divorce from the defendant.
"It is further decreed that the stipulation between plaintiff and the defendant on file relative to the disposition of the property, alimony, and custody of the two minor children, Rowland S. and Cecil A. Stanfield, is reasonable and just, and same is approved and made a part of this decree, to wit, that the plaintiff herein shall have the custody, care, and control of the said minor children, and that the defendant herein may have the privilege of visiting with the above children at such reasonable times as may be agreeable with the plaintiff herein, and may have the said children visit him during vacation between terms of school at his own expense, and that the defendant herein shall pay the plaintiff $ 15 per month for each of said children during such times as she may be keeping house and boarding the said children with her, and in addition thereto shall bear all expenses incident to their care and maintenance, such as clothing, books, medical attention, and other incidents, and all expenses incident to their education, and at such times as it becomes necessary for said children to attend college the defendant herein shall bear all of the expense incident to giving them a collegiate education; that the defendant herein shall pay to the plaintiff, as alimony, $ 150 per month until such time as she shall remarry, said payment to be made at the first of each month, in advance, and that in addition thereto the defendant will bear the expense incident to any sickness of the plaintiff, such as medical attention, medicines, hospital expenses, and nurse hire, and other expenses incident to such sickness, if any should arise; that in the event of accumulation of greater wealth or property interest upon the part of the defendant herein, the said sum of alimony herein provided may be increased by the court in keeping with the financial condition of the defendant, provided the plaintiff remain single and unmarried. It is further ordered that the plaintiff herein release and relinquish all claims to any property which may be held by the defendant herein."

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:

"Comes now the defendant herein, and alleges that on the 21st day of October, 1905, plaintiff was divorced from this defendant, and that a decree of court was entered, giving to the plaintiff herein as alimony $ 150 per month until such time as she should remarry, and in addition thereto defendant was to bear expenses incident to any sickness of plaintiff, such as medical attention, medicine, hospital expenses, nurse hire, and other expenses, if any should arise. Defendant states that, in accordance with such decree of the court, he has regularly and consecutively thereafter complied with the decree of the court. Defendant further alleges the fact to be that plaintiff has been guilty of such conduct on her part since the decree of court herein as to forfeit any right to any further claim to alimony or expenses on the part of the defendant. Wherefore the defendant prays that the court set this matter down for bearing as soon as possible, and upon hearing that this defendant be relieved from any further payment of alimony or expenses of the plaintiff herein."

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:

"Comes now Wade S. Stanfield in his own proper person, and for an amendment to motion filed on May 29, 1906, by this petitioner, shows to the court that on October 11, 1905, the plaintiff herein filed her suit for divorce from your petitioner, and that a decree of divorce was granted on October 21, 1905, by the Honorable Joseph A. Gill, judge, presiding, divorcing the plaintiff in said case from your petitioner, and awarding to the plaintiff herein $ 150 per month alimony and the custody of two minor children, Rowland Stanfield and Cecil Stanfield, and decreeing that your petitioner should pay $ 30 per month board for the said minor children and their expenses.
"(2) Your petitioner states the fact to be that, in accordance with said decree of this court, he regularly and consecutively thereafter complied with the decree of said court in all matters, and made all payments thereunder until June 1, 1906, the last payment of alimony having been made on about May 1, 1906, for the month of May, being payment up to June 1, 1906, at which time your petitioner refused to pay further alimony, but since said date your petitioner has regularly paid the board of said children and all their expenses, as provided in said decree.
"(3) That on May 29, 1906, your petitioner filed his motion in this case to vacate and set aside said order for the payment of alimony, for the reason that the plaintiff, by her misconduct, had forfeited her right to claim alimony in any amount from this petitioner, and rendered it absolutely impossible for him to comply with said order.
"(4) The plaintiff, contrary to the order of the court herein, has, for one year last past, refused to allow your petitioner to see his said children, and stated to said petitioner that she would never again allow him to see them. That since said statement by plaintiff herein she has not allowed the said children to even speak to their father, although during all of said time your petitioner has borne all of their expenses and paid board for them, as provided by the decree herein.
"(5) That plaintiff has recently communicated with the father of petitioner, and told him that petitioner would not furnish clothing for said children, and that they had nothing to wear, all of which was absolutely false. That acting upon her statements, your petitioner's father proceeded at once to buy suits
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • North v. North
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1936
    ...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
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1936
    ...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
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1948
    ...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
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 6, 1999
    ...[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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT