TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tipton v. Lester

TIPTON v. LESTER Et Al.

Tipton v. Lester, 178 S.W.2d 580 (Tex. App. 1944)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Texas · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 23, 1944
Docket
No. 11389.
Judges
Norvell
Citations
178 S.W.2d 5801944 Tex. App. LEXIS 609

Opinion of the Court — Norvell

NORVELL, Justice. _ This is a child custody and support case. The appeal is on the transcript without a statement of facts. But one question is presented: Did the trial court in the proceeding possess the power to order appellant, Melvin Tipton, to contribute the sum of $60 per month toward the support, maintenance and education of his two minor children ?

Appellant filed a “petition for writ of habeas corpus,” alleging that he and Lois Tipton (now Lois Lester) had been divorced by decree of the District Court of Bexar County on April 6, 1943. That the custody of their two minor children had been awarded to said Lois Tipton. That since the entry of this decree Lois Tipton had married one Gene Lester, and the children were being neglected, and because of changed conditions he should be awarded custody of said children.

By cross-action, Lois Lester, joined by her husband, Gene Lester, alleged that the original divorce decree did not provide that Melvin Tipton pay any sums of money for the support of his children and prayed that the decree of divorce he modified so as to provide that Tipton pay $60 per month for child support.

Judgment was entered in accordance with appellees’ prayer.

For reversal, appellant relies upon Williams v. Guynes, Tex.Civ.App., 97 S.W.2d 988 . In that case a decree providing for the payment of certain support moneys was awarded wholly independent of any divorce proceedings and consequently held invalid. In this case appellees sought a modification of the divorce decree in accordance with the provisions of Article 4639a, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. This case, in our opinion, is governed by Townsend v. Townsend, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 769 . See also Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 Tex. 191 , 134 S.W. 2d 1016 , loc. cit. 1021; Ex parte Birkhead, 127 Tex. 556 , 95 S.W.2d 953 .

The order appealed from is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1946: 11953: 11954: 11977: 12007: 12013: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Red v. Red552 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. 1977)
  2. McGowen v. McGowen273 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. App. 1954)
  3. the Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Waddell Gordon Long401 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013)
  4. Slattery v. Hatmaker255 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. App. 1953)
  5. Rhoades v. Fredwell192 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. App. 1946)
  6. Minor v. Rush216 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)

Most recent

  1. the Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Waddell Gordon Long401 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013)
  2. Minor v. Rush216 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)
  3. Red v. Red552 S.W.2d 90 (Tex. 1977)
  4. McGowen v. McGowen273 S.W.2d 658 (Tex. App. 1954)
  5. Slattery v. Hatmaker255 S.W.2d 334 (Tex. App. 1953)
  6. Rhoades v. Fredwell192 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. App. 1946)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 S.W.2d 1016 (Tex. 1940) 119
Ex Parte Claude D. Birkhead, 95 S.W.2d 953 (Tex. 1936) 50
Williams v. Guynes, 97 S.W.2d 988 (Tex. App. 1936) 31
Townsend v. Townsend, 115 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App. 1938) 18

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