Stapleton v. Poynter

• Citation: 111 Ky. 264,62 S.W. 730
• Parties: STAPLETON et al. v. POYNTER. [1]
• Decision Date: 01 May 1901
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

62 S.W. 730

111 Ky. 264

STAPLETON et al. v. POYNTER. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 1, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Laurel county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Christina Poynter against Edward Stapleton and Elizabeth Stapleton to recover possession of plaintiff's child. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

H. C Hazelwood, James Sparks, E. H. Johnson, and J. A. Wilson, for appellants.

Chas R. Brock, A. W. Alcom, and D. K. Rawlings, for appellee.

O'REAR J.

This action was instituted by appellee, the mother of John Craig Stapleton, to recover his possession of appellants, his paternal grandfather and grandmother; the lad being then about 9 years of age. Appellee is a widow. The father of the boy had died some years previous, leaving no estate, and the widowed mother had none. Appellee, who assumes her maiden name, and W. R. Stapleton were married in 1888, and after a brief and unhappy union of three or four years a separation ensued; being, as the record discloses, an abandonment of appellee by her husband, who had become dissolute, and who finally lost his life in a drunken brawl. In this distressing situation, appellee went with her two children, John Craig and a girl some two years younger, to the home of appellants. This was before the death of appellee's husband. She continued there some months, when it was suggested that the old folks could not well accommodate her longer; but they insisted on keeping the children, to whom they appear much attached, --especially the boy. Appellee then sought and obtained employment as a domestic, but, desiring the presence of her children, above other considerations, left the place and took them with her to her father's, in an adjacent county. Appellant Edward Stapleton, and the father of the boy, went to her father some two months afterwards, and, under promises of reform, a reunion of the unfortunate couple was agreed upon; the father and grandfather of the boy taking him back to Laurel county, and the wife and the little girl to follow in a few days. She did so. But she says that then her husband declined to live with her, and declared his only purpose was to regain possession of the boy. Appellee returned to her father's, but soon after again sought employment, and obtained a situation in a family at Somerset, where her girl had better advantages for attending school.

When appellee was first abandoned, and was face to face with the proposition of earning her own living, she was induced to sign a contract with appellants concerning her children. This contract is as follows:

"An article of agreement between Christina Stapleton, of the first part, and Ed Stapleton and Elizabeth Stapleton, his wife, of the second part: The party of the first part agrees to give her two children, Craig and Della, to the party of the second part, to keep and control as their own until they become 21 years old, unless the party of the first part and her husband should live together again. Then she is to have her children, and not until then. She also gives to the party of the second part all her household goods, and horse and cow, to be used to the benefit of raising said children, and also what W. R. Stapleton, her husband, left in the house of Mr. Gee, which she was to have in provisions to live on; and the party of the second part agrees to try to give said children a common education. This April 30th, 1893. Christina Stapleton. Ed Stapleton. Elizabeth Stapleton.

"Att.: Ellen Stapleton.

"I do agree to the above contract. W. R. Stapleton."

Her husband some time after, by his indorsement, approved it.

After the death of her husband, the boy now having grown in size, years, and usefulness, and therefore helpfulness, she seeks to recover possession of him, and, indeed, has sought at frequent intervals before this suit to do so, but unsuccessfully until now.

The defense is summed up by counsel for appellants, in their brief, as follows: "(1) The appellants, the grandparents of the child, John Craig Stapleton, are the proper persons to have the care, custody, and control of said child, and appellee is not. (2) That they (appellants) are financially able to care for and educate said child in a manner suited to his station in life, and that appellee is not. (3) That said child is possessed of sufficient intelligence and age to judge for himself where he should live, and that it is the desire of said child to remain with its grandparents, and not with its mother. (4) That on the 30th day of April, 1893 when this child was a mere infant, appellee, by a writing, surrendered the custody of this child to appellants; and afterwards her husband, its father, agreed to the same contract, and signed it. (5) That since said time appellants have had the care, custody, and control of said child, and that during all of said time, up to now, they have cared for and treated said child in a manner highly conducive to its best interests. (6) That it must be a great hardship to appellants and the child, considering the contract and promises made concerning the child, and the attachments that now have grown up between it and appellants during this long time, for it to be taken from them now." All these grounds may well be grouped into three classes: (1) The child's welfare and wishes; (2) the contract of its parents; and (3) the...