Rose v. Rose
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court; 7. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor; 1. The decree with reference to the custody of the child, shifting the custody between the father and mother, is not to the best interest of the child, and is clearly erroneous. 82 Ark. 461; 37 Ark. 30; 78 Ark. 193; 66 Ark. 601. 2. The testimony establishes the allegations of the complaint, and appellant should have been granted a divorce.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Franklin Chancery Court; 7. Virgil Bourland, Chancellor; 1. The decree with reference to the custody of the child, shifting the custody between the father and mother, is not to the best interest of the child, and is clearly erroneous. 82 Ark. 461; 37 Ark. 30; 78 Ark. 193; 66 Ark. 601. 2. The testimony establishes the allegations of the complaint, and appellant should have been granted a divorce. If there was any fault on the part of appellant in his conduct toward appellee, it was condoned. 62 Ark. 611; 23 Ark. 615; 73 Ark. 281. 1. The child is of that tender age when a mother’s…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
Appellant, Dillard Rose, instituted this suit against his wife, Sarah Rose, to obtain a divorce and the custody of their infant son. The grounds for divorce set forth in his complaint are willful desertion without reasonable cause for the period of one year. Appellee filed an answer denying that she had deserted her husband without reasonable cause, and also a cross-complaint praying for divorce on the alleged ground that he was guilty of conduct amounting to indignities which rendered her condition intolerable. The ohancellor rendered a decree refusing a divorce either on the prayer of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Blake v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945
- French v. GravesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
- Ledwidge v. LedwidgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942