TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hayden v. Hayden

Hayden v. Hayden, 98 So. 162 (La. 1923)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Louisiana · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 12, 1923
Docket
No. 25085
Judges
Bru, Niell, Rogers
Citations
98 So. 162154 La. 7161923 La. LEXIS 2010

Opinion of the Court — Niell

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

O’NIELL, C. J.

Plaintiff sued for a separation from bed and hoard, for alimony, and for the care and keeping of her two children. She obtained a judgment of separation, from which the defendant did not appeal. She has appealed from the judgment in so far as it requires her to divide with her husband the care and keeping of the children, and in so far as the alimony allowed her, which is $20 a month, is pay *717 able not continuously but only while the children are in her care and keeping.

The judgment provides that the children shall be with the plaintiff three months and then with the defendant three months, and then go back to the plaintiff for three months, and so on, alternating, indefinitely. Plaintiff was allowed alimony at $20 a month, for the support of her children, but only for the time when they would be in her care and keeping.

According to article 157 of the Civil Code, as amended and re-enacted by Act 38 of 1921, p. 42, a party who obtains a judgment of separation or divorce is entitled to the care and keeping of the children, unless there is some reason, of advantage to the children, for placing them- in the care of the other party. We do not find any reason in this case for withholding plaintiff’s right to have her children continuously in her care and keeping and to collect the alimony every month.

The judgment appealed from is amended so as to leave the children continuously in the care and keeping of the appellant, and so as to make the alimony payable every month. The costs of this appeal are to be paid by the appellee.

How later courts describe this case

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

1924: 11935: 11944: 119242026peak 1924 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Higginbotham v. Lofton164 So. 255 (La. 1935)
  2. Scacciaferro v. Hymel20 So. 2d 284 (La. 1944)
  3. Brewton v. Brewton105 So. 307 (La. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Scacciaferro v. Hymel20 So. 2d 284 (La. 1944)
  2. Higginbotham v. Lofton164 So. 255 (La. 1935)
  3. Brewton v. Brewton105 So. 307 (La. 1924)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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