Stone v. Stone, 28872.
| Citation | 133 P.2d 526,16 Wn.2d 315 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 1943 |
| Docket Number | 28872. |
| Parties | STONE v. STONE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 1.
Action by Lettie E. Stone against Mack Stone for divorce, wherein defendant filed a cross-complaint. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed with instructions.
Appeal from Superior Court, Thurston County; D. F. Wright, judge.
E. A Philbrick and Julia Waldrip Ker, both of Olympia, for appellant.
Ralph L. J. Armstrong, of Olympia, for respondent.
This action was instituted by Lettie E. Stone against her husband Mack Stone, to obtain a decree of divorce, on the ground of cruelty. Plaintiff asked that she be given the custody of the minor children, support money and certain property. Defendant answered, denying the charges of cruelty, and by his cross-complaint alleged that plaintiff had been guilty of cruel conduct toward him, and that she was raising their children in accordance with the custom of a certain religious cult, whereby they were taught not to salute the American flag and other disloyal and unAmerican practices; also, that they were taught no respect for the American from of government, and were discouraged from being loyal to our country. Defendant asked that he be given a decree of divorce, the care and custody of the minor children, and that the court make distribution of the property.
The matter came on for hearing Before the court, which thereafter made and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and a decree. The court found these parties were married in 1921 and have the following children: Maxine Stone, aged nineteen years; Tommie Stone, aged seventeen years; Sherman Stone aged fifteen years; James Stone, aged five years; and Loralee Stone, aged two years. The court further found that defendant is a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of the children; that plaintiff is a fit and proper person morally to have the custody and control of the minor children, but she is a member of a fanatical organization with teachings entirely inimical to the rearing of children as American citizens; that for this reason only she is not a fit and proper person to have the custody and control of the minor children.
The court further found that plaintiff had been guilty of acts of cruelty toward defendant, rendering his life burdensome; that the parties owned personal property consisting of household goods, gas station equipment, stock of merchandise and fixtures, garage tools, machinery and equipment, and an International truck, also real property consisting of the south half of lots 9 and 10, block 4, town of Viora (now Littlerock), in Thurston county, Washington; that defendant has a quick temper and must learn to control his temper with respect to rearing the children; that a reasonable attorney fee for plaintiff's attorney is seventy-five dollars.
From the above findings, the court concluded that defendant was entitled to an interlocutory decree of divorce, and entitled to the custody and control of all the children, subject to the right of visitation on the part of plaintiff, 'provided that plaintiff shall not endeavor at any time to teach said children the principles of the beliefs of her organization;' and that defendant have the real estate hereinBefore described, together with all the personal property, except those items of household furniture and other personal property now in the possession of plaintiff. Judgment was entered in accordance with the conclusions, and from this judgment plaintiff has appealed.
Appellant states that the court erred in refusing appellant a decree and granting respondent a divorce; in depriving appellant of her children and according them to respondent; in depriving appellant of all the property accumulated by them during twenty-one years of married life; and in not making any provision for the support and maintenance of appellant.
Appellant is a member of 'Jehovah's Witnesses,' and apparently has been a member for some time. As such member, Mrs. Stone gives about five and three-quarters hours a week to the organization, distributing its literature from house to house, in which work she is usually accompanied by James, the five year old son. It does not appear that in doing this work she neglects her home or her family; in fact, we think all the testimony is to the effect that she maintains a good home, and that all the children of school age have attended school regularly, and are above the average of children in that community. There is not one word to testimony tending to even hint that Mrs. Stone's morals are other than above reproach, or that she has not done all that any good mother would try to do to bring up her children to be good, lawabiding citizens, unless it be the influence exercised by her over them in getting them to accept the interpretation of the Bible made by Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly as such interpretation pertains to saluting our flag, and perhaps as to voting.
Mrs. Stone testified that there was nothing unAmerican taught by Jehovah's Witnesses; that it is a Christian organization, founded on the Bible. Mrs. Stone, in answer to a direct question as to whether she had taught her children not to salute the flag, answered: She further stated:
Jehovah's Witnesses has existed since about 1878, and as we understand it, its members' refusal to salute the flag is not because they do not honor the flag, but because of an honest conviction, based upon their interpretation of the Bible, that saluting the flag is making it an image of the power to which one looks for salvation, and that to salute such an image ignores Almighty God, from whom alone salvation proceeds. Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach any violation of the laws of the state which are in harmony with God's laws, but if the law of the state is in direct violation of God's law, they will obey God's law first and all the time.
There is no testimony that there has been any trouble at school because of the failure of the Stone children to salute the flag. Two of the older children do not salute the flag, while one of them does. The two younger children are not old enough to have any views on the question.
Respondent does not believe in the above doctrine, and there has been much quarreling and discord in the family as the result of this difference in opinion. These differences were brought to a climax when respondent told the oldest daughter, Maxine who was about to go out and distribute some of the tracts or books of the organization, that she could stay at home and take care of the house, or take her clothes and go to town and make her own living. The daughter left, and Mrs. Stone went with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quiner v. Quiner
...(1959); Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1, 309 P.2d 705 (1957); Salvaggio v. Barnett, 248 S.W.2d 244 (Tex.Civ.App.1952); Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash.2d 315, 133 P.2d 526 (1934); Commonwealth ex rel. Derr v. Derr, 148 Pa.Super. 511, 25 A.2d 769 (1942); cert. den., 317 U.S. 631, 63 S.Ct. 57, 87 L.Ed......
-
Meredith v. Meredith
...Reynolds v. Rayborn, 116 S.W.2d 836 (TexCiv.App.1938); Levitsky v. Levitsky, 231 Md. 388, 190 A.2d 621 (1963); Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash. 2d 315, 133 P.2d 526 (1943); Cory v. Cory, 70 Cal.App.2d 563, 161 P.2d 385 (1945). Contra see: Smith v. Smith, 61 Ariz. 373, 149 P.2d 683 (1944); Commonwea......
-
Waites v. Waites
...views or teachings of either parent." Id. at 247; see Reynolds v. Rayborn, 116 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex.Civ.App.1938). In Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash.2d 315, 133 P.2d 526 (1943), the Supreme Court of Washington said that "(w)e do not doubt the right of the state to suppress religious practices dang......
-
Jackson v. Jackson, 40231
...ours.) This rule is followed in many states. Similar decisions are Cory v. Cory, 70 Cal.App.2d 563, 161 P.2d 385; Stone v. Stone, 16 Wash.2d 315, 133 P.2d 526; Reynolds v. Rayborn, Tex.Civ.App.1938, 116 S.W.2d 836; and Salvaggio v. Barnett, Tex.Civ.App.1952, 248 S.W.2d 244; 344 U.S. 879, 73......