State ex rel. Bethany v. Corley
| Decision Date | 30 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 30778 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BETHANY v. CORLEY et ux |
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Parish of Bienville John S. Richardson, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceeding by the State, on the relation of James C Bethany, against A. B. Corley and wife. Judgment for relator and respondents appeal.
Affirmed.
Foster R. Taylor, of Arcadia, for appellants.
J. R. Goff, of Arcadia, for appellee.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding. The relator seeks to recover possession of his minor daughter, who is now in custody of the respondents, the uncle and aunt of the child's deceased mother. In the trial court there was judgment in favor of the relator, and the respondents appealed.
In 1919 the relator married Lillie Corley, and established the matrimonial domicile in Arkansas, where the child was born. A few months after the birth of the child the parties separated. The wife returned, with the child, to Louisiana, and lived with respondents until her death, which occurred in 1929. The relator obtained a divorce from his wife by a decree of a chancery court of Arkansas, but the custody of the child was not put at issue in that suit. In a subsequent suit for the custody of the child, which the wife instituted in Louisiana by way of substituted service, of which relator contends he was not notified, the wife obtained judgment awarding her the custody of the child. After the death of Mrs. Bethany, relator filed this proceeding.
The only real issue presented is one of fact. Upon reading the testimony in the record, we fully concur in the trial judge's finding that it conclusively established the relator's willingness, ability, and moral fitness to properly care for, rear, and educate his daughter. There is a suggestion that the relator's financial situation may not permit him to surround his daughter with the same degree of culture and refinement obtainable in the home of respondents, but this is a mere suggestion, which is not warranted by the proof, and which, if true, would not justify the court in denying relator the relief prayed for. In the case of State ex rel. Monroe et ux. v. Ford, 164 La. 149, 113 So. 798, 800, this court, through Mr. Justice Rogers, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Deason v. McWilliams, 42085
...Ex. parte Lincoln, 128 La. 278, 54 So. 818; State ex rel. Martin v. Talbot, 161 La. 192, 108 So. 411; State ex rel. Bethany v. Corley, 172 La. 266, 134 So. All parties to this suit, both relators and respondents, bear excellent reputations. There is no evidence to show any moral unfitness o......
-
State ex rel. Lott v. Courtney
... ... Ex parte Lincoln, 128 La. 278, 54 So. 818; State ex rel. Martin v. Talbot, 161 La. 192, 108 So. 411; State ex rel. Bethany v. Corley, 172 La. 266, 134 So. 87, and the burden is on those resisting the parent's right ... Page 493 ... to show his or her disqualification ... ...
-
State ex rel. Brode v. Hatcher
... ... Ex parte Lincoln, 128 La. 278, 54 So. 818; State ex rel. Martin v. Talbot, 161 La. 192, 108 So. 411; State ex rel. Bethany v. Corley, 172 La. 266, 134 So. 87, and the burden is on those resisting the parent's right to show his or her disqualification or unfitness to have ... ...
-
State ex rel. Rothrock v. Webber
...parte Lincoln, 128 La. 278, 54 So. 818; State ex rel. Martin et al. v. Talbot et ux., 161 La. 192, 108 So. 411; State ex rel. Bethany v. Corley et ux., 172 La. 266, 134 So. 87, and the burden is on those resisting the parent's right to show his or her disqualification or unfitness to have t......