Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

136 Ala. 188

Pearce v. Pearce

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1902

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1902-11-15

Heard before the Hon. John C. Carmichael. The proceedings in this case were bad upon a petition filed in the chancery court of Walker county by the ap-pellee, May E. Peai'ce, in which she averred that she and the respondent, J. Gus Pearce, were married in 1898, and lived together as husband and wife until June, 1900; that a child was. born to them, who, at the itme of the filing of the petition, was about 2 years old; that in June, 1900, on account of the wrngful acts…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1902-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2015

20 state decisions

90190219101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

DOWDELL, J.

¶1A petition by the wife under section 2538 of the Code is properly filed in her own name. McGough v. McGough, ante, p. 170.

¶2A plea of res adjudicate, was filed in the petition, setting up the filing of a former petition by this petitioner, and that on a demurrer sustained to the petition, and a failure of the petitioner to amend the said petition, the same was by decree of the court dismissed. In proceedings of this nature, involving the custody and 'care of infants, the paramount consideration is the well-being and good of the infant. The rights of the petitioner and the defendant in the petition are secondary in consideration. The infant is regarded as the ward of a court of chancery, and that court will not permit his well-being to be jeopardized by any judgment in a previous contest between the father and mother concerning his custody^and care. The.court may by its decrees change its custody from one. parent to the other, as the interest and care of the infant may in the judgment of the court require. The. character and purpose of the proceedings here are different from an action where only the. rights of the parties litigating are involved. The demurrer to the plea was properly sustained.

¶3Those, are the only questions presented for consideration, and the ruling of the lower court being, in harmony with our views, the decree will be affirmed.

¶4Affirmed.

/136/ala/188 · .json · Public domain