Waller v. Waller
| Decision Date | 11 February 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-9685,4-9685 |
| Citation | 220 Ark. 19,245 S.W.2d 814 |
| Parties | WALLER v. WALLER. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John E. Hooker, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Hendrix Rowell, Pine Bluff, for appellee.
By this appeal, appellant, William Waller, questions the legality of an order, made by the Jefferson Chancery Court, requiring him to pay his divorced wife, Cleo Waller, the sum of $40.00 per month for the support of their 3-year old daughter.
Dates aid in an understanding of the facts:
a) On July 9, 1949, the Ouachita Chancery Court awarded William Waller a divorce from Cleo Waller, on the ground of indignities. As regards the custody and support of the child, the said divorce decree recites: '* * * that one child, a little girl named Pamela Lee, was born of this marriage on March 20, 1948, and that the child is with the defendant in Louisiana and the parties have agreed that no order will be entered with reference to her custody or support.'
b) In early October, 1950, William Waller went to Louisiana, and without consent, took possession of the child and brought her to Jefferson County, Arkansas. Thereupon, on October 7, 1950, Cleo Waller filed in the Jefferson Chancery Court, a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which recited as facts all the above statements, and after the specific prayer for habeas corpus, concluded: '* * * and for such other relief as this court may deem just, proper and equitable.'
c) In resisting the habeas corpus, William Waller stated in his pleading: '* * * that the petitioner is not a fit and proper person to have the custody of Pamela Lee Waller, the child referred to in the petition; and the respondent further states that if the petitioner were a fit and proper person to have the custody of said child at the time of the decree hereinabove referred to was entered, the custody of said child should now be awarded to respondent because of the change in conditions which have taken place, since said decree was rendered.'
He prayed, inter alia: '* * * that the petition upon the whole case be denied and that he be awarded the custody of said minor child; and for other general and proper relief.'
d) On November 15, 1950, there was a trial before the Jefferson Chancery Court, and a decree was rendered which recited that testimony was heard; but no part of the testimony at such hearing is before us in the present transcript. The November 15, 1950, decree (1) awarded the custody of the child to the mother, Cleo Waller, (2) gave the father, William Waller, the right to have the child one week every three months, and (3) '* * * decreed that the defendant, William J. Waller, pay to the plaintiff, Cleo S. Waller, the sum of $40.00 per month, for the support and maintenance of said Pamela Lee Waller, beginning on the first day of December, 1950, and continue to pay a like amount on the first day of each month thereafter, subject to the further orders of this court.'
e) William Waller did not make any of the monthly payments, as required by the November 15, 1950, decree. In early March, 1951, he went to Louisiana and forceably took possession of the child and brought her to Jefferson County, Arkansas. Thereupon, Cleo Waller asked the Jefferson Chancery Court to punish William Waller for contempt. He resisted the proceedings on the grounds later to be discussed.
After hearing the cause, the Jefferson Chancery Court (a) adjudged the contempt; (b) reaffirmed its decree of November 15, 1950, for support payments for the child; and (c) awarded Mrs. Waller $25.00 attorney's fee as a plain judgment. From the said decree of March 13, 1951, William Waller brings this appeal. It was prayed out of this Court on September 12, 1951, which was too late to appeal from the November 15, 1950 decree. See Sec. 27-2106, Ark. Stats. The only evidence in the present record is that taken at the March, 1951, hearing.
William Waller states his argument for reversal in these words: * * *
Stating it concisely, appellant contends that the order of November 15, 1950, adjudging support money to be paid by him to his former wife for the support of their child, was absolutely void, and that he could not be guilty of contempt in failing to make such payments. In support of his contention, appellant's learned counsel cites the Virginia case of Buchanan v. Buchanan, 170 Va. 458, 197 S.E. 426, 429, 116 A.L.R. 688; and, following the reported decision, there is, in 116 A.L.R. 699, an Annotation entitled: 'Power of court, in habeas corpus proceedings relating to custody of child, to adjudicate amount which shall be paid for child's support or to modify agreement in that regard.' The said case of Buchanan v. Buchanan enunciated the so-called 'Virginia Rule', which may be summarized in this language, as found in a quotation in that opinion: 'It will therefore be seen that the proceeding is confined in very narrow limits, and cannot be extended to the adjudication of claims or money demands and unsettled accounts between the parties; the only jurisdiction of the court was to determine whether the father or aunt had the better right to the child, and decree it to such custody.'
In the aforementioned A.L.R. Annotation, cases from other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harper v. Caskin
...v. Smith, 254 Ark. 720, 495 S.W.2d 865. The courts will zealously enforce these duties. Jordan v. Wright, 45 Ark. 237; Waller v. Waller, 220 Ark. 19, 245 S.W.2d 814. They are derived from principles of natural law and are owed both to the child and to the public. Jordan v. Wright, supra; Jo......
-
Howarth v. Northcott
...jurisdiction, will do complete justice applies. See cases such as Bartlett v. Bartlett, 175 Or. 215, 152 P.2d 402, and Waller v. Waller, 220 Ark. 19, 245 S.W.2d 814. We are in accord with the latter view. The employment of the forms of habeas corpus in a child custody case is not for the pu......
-
Brown v. Brown, 5-2353
...to pursue the matter. We have frequently allowed attorneys' fees to a parent who sues to recover support money payments. Waller v. Waller, 220 Ark. 19, 245 S.W.2d 814; Brun v. Rembert, 227 Ark. 241, 297 S.W.2d 940; Wilson v. Wilson, Ark., 329 S.W.2d 557. Since Mr. Brown cross-appealed the r......
-
Olney v. Gordon, 5--3873
...a habeas corpus proceeding between the mother and father, the issue is always what is for the best interest of the child. Waller v. Waller, 220 Ark. 19, 245 S.W.2d 814. The Chancery Court held that the Oklahoma decree was entitled to full faith and credit, and so the Chancery Court never pa......