Larmer v. Larmer

220 P. 1050, 114 Kan. 751, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 281
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedDecember 8, 1923
DocketNo. 23,844
StatusPublished

This text of 220 P. 1050 (Larmer v. Larmer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Larmer v. Larmer, 220 P. 1050, 114 Kan. 751, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 281 (kan 1923).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the district court overruling a motion to modify a decree of divorce, which granted plaintiff custody of the child, so as to give such custody to defendant. Much evidence was offered in support of and in opposition to the motion. It will serve no useful purpose to summarize the evidence. We have examined it all with care. It supports the ruling of the coui’t. Such ruling did no violence to the legal principles involved, which are the respective rights of the parties and the welfare of the child. The court might have considered certain affidavits offered by defendant, but, in view of their late filing, it was not an abuse of discretion for him to refuse to do so. In any event, their effect as evidence was cumulative and would not have changed the. result. The statement of the evidence most favorable to appellant is to say that it was conflicting and we have repeatedly declined to interfere with a judgment on conflicting evidence. This case, from the very nature of it, is such that the lower court, having the parties and witnesses before it, is in much better position to weigh the evidence than is this court.

Finding no error in the record the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 P. 1050, 114 Kan. 751, 1923 Kan. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larmer-v-larmer-kan-1923.