O'Kane v. Lyle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court, Ozark District,* W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; • 1. No change of circumstances was shown and the matter is res adju-dicata. 55 Ark. 286; 66 Id. 336; 96 Id. 540; 19 Id. 420; 55 Id. 536; 70 Id. 200. 2. The evidence does not support the decree. 53 S. W. 717. There was no abuse of judicial discretion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court, Ozark District,* W. A. Falconer, Chancellor; • 1. No change of circumstances was shown and the matter is res adju-dicata. 55 Ark. 286; 66 Id. 336; 96 Id. 540; 19 Id. 420; 55 Id. 536; 70 Id. 200. 2. The evidence does not support the decree. 53 S. W. 717. There was no abuse of judicial discretion. The former decree makes no provision for the support of the child and the decree is amply supported by the testimony. 140 S. W. (Tenn.) 745; 111 Id. (Mo.) 579; 42 Ark. 495; 86 Id. 473.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The plaintiff and defendant were formerly husband and wife and were divorced by a decree rendered in July, 1912, by the chancery court of Franklin County, Arkansas, where they resided. There was one child, the issue of said inter-marriage, a girl, and the custody of the child was awarded to the plaintiff, Lizzie 0 ’Kane, who has since inter-married with one Lyle.. The defendant, Walter O’Kane, owned a large and valuable farm in Franklin County, one-third of which was awarded to the plaintiff as alimony ;by the same .decree which granted the divorce. The decree did not specifically award…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Weatherton v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Riegler v. RieglerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Watnick v. BockmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946