Culwell v. Franks

Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

Culwell v. Franks

64 S.W. 532, 3 Indian Terr. 548, 1901 Indian Terr. LEXIS 12

CourtCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory

DecidedOctober 4, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 S.W. 532 (Culwell v. Franks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court Of Appeals Of Indian Territory primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Culwell v. Franks, 64 S.W. 532, 3 Indian Terr. 548, 1901 Indian Terr. LEXIS 12 (Conn. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Clayton, J.

It is contended by tbe appellant that the father is the natural guardian of his minor children. While this is true as an original proposition, yet in this case that right was taken away from him by the decree of the court in the divorce proceeding, and the cus tody was awarded to the mother. The decree of divorce was rendered by the very court in which this proceeding is had, and it had not been set aside nor modified. ■ Decrees of divorce, in so far as the custody of children and alimony is concerned, are always subject to modification by the chancellor, if future developments shall render a change necessary. 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. 1167; Kurtz vs Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119; Holt vs Holt, 42 Ark. 495. And until this is done the mother is the legal custodian of the child. The decree of the court granting the divorce and awarding the custody of the child cannot be attacked in a collateral way, and the proper proceeding would have been by application to the chancellor for a modification of the decree. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing the writ. Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

Townsend, C. J., and Gill and Raymond, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clayton, J.

It is contended by tbe appellant that the father is the natural guardian of his minor children. While this is true as an original proposition, yet in this case that right was taken away from him by the decree of the court in the divorce proceeding, and the cus tody was awarded to the mother. The decree of divorce was rendered by the very court in which this proceeding is had, and it had not been set aside nor modified. ■ Decrees of divorce, in so far as the custody of children and alimony is concerned, are always subject to modification by the chancellor, if future developments shall render a change necessary. 2 Bish. Mar. & Div. 1167; Kurtz vs Kurtz, 38 Ark. 119; Holt vs Holt, 42 Ark. 495. And until this is done the mother is the legal custodian of the child. The decree of the court granting the divorce and awarding the custody of the child cannot be attacked in a collateral way, and the proper proceeding would have been by application to the chancellor for a modification of the decree. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing the writ. Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

Townsend, C. J., and Gill and Raymond, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 S.W. 532, 3 Indian Terr. 548, 1901 Indian Terr. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culwell-v-franks-ctappindterr-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack