Hughes v. Hughes

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Hughes v. Hughes

1948 OK 141, 194 P.2d 843, 200 Okla. 374, 1948 Okla. LEXIS 489

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 8, 1948

DocketNo. 33123

StatusPublished

This text of 1948 OK 141 (Hughes v. Hughes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hughes v. Hughes, 1948 OK 141, 194 P.2d 843, 200 Okla. 374, 1948 Okla. LEXIS 489 (Okla. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

GIBSON, J.

This case arose as an action by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, and cross-action by defendant in error as defendant and cross-petitioner, each being for divorce upon ground of cruelty and each praying for the care and custody of their two minor children. Upon trial judgment was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s-petition, awarding defendant divorce and the decree defined the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the support and custody of the children. It is from such judgment plaintiff appeals.

The only error urged as a ground for the reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the court in awarding a divorce to defendant upon the ground of cruelty. We have carefully examined the evidence and find that the judgment' is not clearly against the weight thereof, but on the contrary is sustained thereby. In such situation it is the established rule- in this jurisdiction that the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. Limb v. Limb, 195 Okla. 249, 156 P. 2d 1013.

Judgment affirmed.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, and LUT-TRELL, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.

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

GIBSON, J.

This case arose as an action by plaintiff in error, as plaintiff, and cross-action by defendant in error as defendant and cross-petitioner, each being for divorce upon ground of cruelty and each praying for the care and custody of their two minor children. Upon trial judgment was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s-petition, awarding defendant divorce and the decree defined the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the support and custody of the children. It is from such judgment plaintiff appeals.

The only error urged as a ground for the reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to justify the court in awarding a divorce to defendant upon the ground of cruelty. We have carefully examined the evidence and find that the judgment' is not clearly against the weight thereof, but on the contrary is sustained thereby. In such situation it is the established rule- in this jurisdiction that the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. Limb v. Limb, 195 Okla. 249, 156 P. 2d 1013.

Judgment affirmed.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD, and LUT-TRELL, JJ., concur. RILEY, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1948 OK 141, 194 P.2d 843, 200 Okla. 374, 1948 Okla. LEXIS 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hughes-v-hughes-okla-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack