Case Name: Luellen v. Younger
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1924-03-21
Citations: 194 Ind. 411
Docket Number: No. 23,996
Parties: Luellen v. Younger.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 411–419

Head Matter:
Luellen v. Younger.
[No. 23,996.
Filed March 21, 1924.]
1. Appeal. — Assignment of Errors. — Motion to Strike Out.— Conflicting Affidavits. — Waiver by Delay. — Where the appellant filed a verified motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors, notice being given to the appellees, who did not appear at the hearing, but thereafter, after the court had overruled said motion, filed a motion to strike out one of the assignments of error on the ground that it had been inserted therein after the appeal was submitted, the motion being supported by affidavits, to which appellant responded by an affidavit that said assignment was written after the original assignment was made but beforev submission, the appellate tribunal will decline to pass upon the disputed question of fact, for the reason that the appellees were guilty of laches in not challenging the statements in appellant’s motion to amend the assignment of error, p. 412.
2. Habeas Corpus. — Appeal.—Weighing Evidence. — Custody of Infant. — On appeal from a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding for the custody of a child, the court will not weigh the evidence, but will affirm the finding of the. trial court when there is evidence sufficient upon which to base the finding, distinguishing cáses of habeas corpus to be let to bail. p. 416.
3. Parent and Child.- — Father’s Bight to Custody. — Common-law Buie Modified.- — Under the modern view of the relation of parent and child, a fathers right to the custody and control of his minor children is not unlimited, but continues only so long as such custody and control are properly exercised, p. 417.
4. Parent and Child. — Father's Action for Custody. — Paramount Consideration. — When a minor child has once passed from the custody and control of the father, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, and in a habeas corpus proceeding for its possession, the court will withhold from the father such custody and control if the welfare of the child demands it. p. 417.
5. Habeas Corpus. — For Custody of Infant. — Rule Stated. — In an action of habeas corpus for the custody of an infant child, the court acts as parens patriae, and the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration: p. 418.
6. Parent and Child. — Father’s Action for Custody. — Foster Parents. — When the interests of a child that has been raised by foster parents will best be promoted by leaving it with such parents, the father will not be permitted to obtain its custody by judicial action, p. 418.
Í. Parent and Child. — Custody of Child. — Irrevocable Gift or Contract. — In this state, a parent’s agreement to give the custody of his infant child to another is not irrevocable, p. 418.
8. Habeas Corpus. — Custody of Child. — Judgment.-—Res Judicata. — A judgment in an action of habeas corpus for the possession of child is not res judicata except where the status of the controversy remains the same as at the time of the judgment, p. 418.
9. Appeal. — Review. — Sufficiency of Evidence. — Evidence Omitted from, Record. — An appellate tribunal will not consider an assignment of error which requires a consideration of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court unless all of the evidence given in the cause is presented to the court in proper manner and form. p. 419.
From Morgan Circuit Court; Alfred M. Bain, Judge.
Action by Charles M. Luellen against Charles E. Younger and his wife, Maria Younger, for a writ of habeas corpus for the possession of his infant daughter. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Evans & DeWitt and S. C. Kivett, for appellant.
Joseph W. Williams and Homer Elliott; for appellees.
On Motion to Strike Out Assignment op Errors.
[Filed January» 4, 1922.]

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The motion for a new trial in this case was overruled on April 4, 1921, at which time a term appeal was granted, and an appeal bond was thereafter filed on April 30, and the transcript and assignment of errors on June 28. Appellant filed a printed brief on August 17, and a printed "amended brief" on September 10. Each of these recited that the "errors relied on for reversal" included that — "(2) The court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. (3) The finding is not fairly supported by the evidence. (4) The finding is clearly against the weight of the evidence. (5) The finding is contrary to law", which is a substantial copy of the assignment of errors as it now appears in the transcript, except that the statement that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial appears as the fourth assignment of errors, and that one specification in the motion is that the finding is not "sustained" by sufficient evidence. On October 13, the appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and on October 18, appellant filed a verified motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors, with an acknowledgement, signed by the attorneys for appellees, of service of notice for October 2\5, "by leaving a copy of said notice and a copy of the accompanying petition with us." The motion for leave to amend asserted, under oath, that the assignment of errors contained the four specifications above set out, in substance as printed in the briefs, except that they were numbered differently. Appellees did not appear to this motion, but it was overruled October 27, the court being influenced by the fact that the assignment contained the fourth specification.
Four weeks later, on November 25, appellee filed a motion to strike out from the assignment of errors the specification that "the court erred in overruling motion for a new trial" which is written with a pen, while the other three specifications are typewritten, and, in support of the motion, filed affidavits that this specification was not in the assignment of errors when it was examined by counsel on October 13, at the time the mo tion to dismiss was prepared and filed. A counter affidavit by counsel for'the appellant states that he noticed the failure of the typewritten assignment of errors, as originally prepared, to specify the overruling c¡¡f the motion for a new trial as error, and wrote in that specification with a pen before the cause was submitted (which was on July 28), as preliminary to preparing the brief, filed August 17.
Upon this conflict of statements by counsel, we must decline to pass upon the disputed question of fact. That the assignment sought to be stricken out appears in the printed brief lends some support to the position of appellant, while other facts tend to support the appellees. But we do not think we shofild decide the question presented. If the statements in the brief and in appellant's verified motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors that one specification of such motion was that "the court erred in overruling motion for a new trial" were erroneous, appellees should havé challenged them promptly, and not have waited until nearly a month after the court had ruled on said motion, being more than three months after appellant's original brief was filed, and two and a half months after he filed his amended brief. Appellees did not file a brief until December 5, but no reason is made to appear why they did not challenge the statement in appellant's motion for leave to amend the assignment of errors before the court had made a ruling based upon what the verified motion stated and the facts shown by the transcript indicated to be true at the time that ruliiig was made.
'Appellee's motion to strike out the fourth specification of the assignment of errors is overruled.