TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Young v. Young

Young v. Young.

Young v. Young, 108 So. 746 (Ala. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 27, 1926
Docket
No. 6 Div. 603.
Judges
Gardner, Anderson, Sayre, Miller
Citations
108 So. 746214 Ala. 6421926 Ala. LEXIS 148

Opinion of the Court — Gardner

GARDNER, J.

Appellant prosecutes this appeal from a decree denying him a divorce. The result of the appeal rests only upon a determination of questions of fact, a discussion of which would serve no useful purpose. 'Suffice it to say the evidence has been carefully weighed and studied by the court in consultation in the light of the argument of counsel and opinion of the trial court, wherein is stated his reason for the conclusion reached, and, while fully mindful of the rule as to the weight to be accorded such conclusion where the evidence is taken orally before the court (Moor v. Moor, 211 Ala. 56 , 99 So. 316 ), as in the instant case, yet we find ourselves persuaded to a contrary view. As previously indicated, we pretermit a discussion of the evidence or any elaboration of our viexvs, but rest content, in the interest of all parties, with a statement of our conclusion that, from the evidence, complainant is entitled to a decree of divorce. In so-far as the decree rendered dismisses complainant’s bill and denies him this relief, it will be reversed- and one here rendered granting to complainant an absolute divorce.

The chancellor left the care and custody of the child (now five years of age) with the maternal grandparents, who bear a good name and who have cared well and tenderly for the child since its birth. Upon this question the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. All things considered, we agree with the trial court as to the disposition of the child. The decree in this respect is of course subject to future review as conditions may arise, any modification thereof to he sought by application to the trial court. The decree in this. particular therefore will be affirmed.

Appellee will be taxed with the costs of this appeal, and the costs-of the court below will be taxed equally against the parties.

Reversed and rendered, in part, and in part affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. X, and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11934: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Brown158 So. 311 (Ala. 1934)
  2. Lynn v. Lynn115 So. 184 (Ala. 1928)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. Brown158 So. 311 (Ala. 1934)
  2. Lynn v. Lynn115 So. 184 (Ala. 1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Moor v. Moor, 99 So. 316 (Ala. 1924) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list