In re Tierney

128 A.D. 835, 112 N.Y.S. 1039, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 1908
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 A.D. 835 (In re Tierney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Tierney, 128 A.D. 835, 112 N.Y.S. 1039, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Miller, J.:

• This is a proceeding instituted by the petition of a father to obtain the custody of his daughter, a child of seven , years. The petition was opposed by the mother, who now has the custody of the child.

It was proper to invoke the chancery power of the court by petition. ( Wilcox v. Wilcox, 14 N. Y. 575; Matter of Knowack, 158 id. 482.)

The controlling question is the welfare of the child. The record discloses that the father and mother are living separate and apart "from each other, and that the mother abandoned the home provided by the husband and brought an action for separation on the the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In that action the (court dismissed the complaint on the merits and found that the defendant had not been guilty of any' of the acts charged, and that said plaintiff has not during all the time of the said marriage with defendant always conducted herself as a dutiful wife and mother.”

Thus we approach the consideration of. the question before us with the established fact .that the mother, without excuse and without being free from fault herself, abandoned the home provided by the husband.

It further appears that the mother is without means of supporting the child, who is now living- with an aunt, a sister of the mother. The record before us contains a letter written by said aunt to the sister of the child whose custody is in dispute. That letter, in Connection with the other .circumstances disclosed, convinces us that the welfare of the child requires that she be removed from her present surroundings.

The order should be reversed and the petition granted.

Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Order reversed, without costs, and petition granted, without costs.

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

Related

People ex rel. Spreckels v. deRuyter
150 Misc. 323 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
People ex rel. Jones v. Johnson
205 A.D. 190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
In Matter of Badger
226 S.W. 936 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1920)
Badger v. Badger
224 S.W. 41 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1920)
In re McDevitt
101 Misc. 588 (New York Supreme Court, 1917)
In re Remske
95 Misc. 330 (New York Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
128 A.D. 835, 112 N.Y.S. 1039, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tierney-nyappdiv-1908.