{
  "id": 1723926,
  "name": "Swindle v. Bradley, Chancellor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Swindle v. Bradley",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-23",
  "docket_number": "5-3941",
  "first_page": "65",
  "last_page": "67",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 65"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "406 S.W.2d 324"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 903",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727413
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0903-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 Ark. 609",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1684856
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/235/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 3430,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0648642063687883
    },
    "sha256": "4b7d26efbbbd35592bde2fdc9f34dc5f94a51bbbc7ee429f1d683e24d70c9b29",
    "simhash": "1:8da6a8caf713cab8",
    "word_count": 605
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Swindle v. Bradley, Chancellor"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice,\ndissenting. After much reflection I am voting- to grant the petition for a rehearing.\nThis mother is trying to regain possession of her four year old daughter who was taken away from her illegally and by force. Assistance is now being denied this mother by this Court, the trial court, and the law enforcement officers because of a legal technicality which does not, in my opinion, apply under the undisputed facts in this case.\nEssential facts. It is undisputed that:\n(a) On May 28, 1965 the chancery court gave Valerie (the mother) the custody of Sharon \u2014 her three year old daughter.\n(b) On July 2, 1965 the term of said chancery court expired.\n(c) On August 4, 1965 Gerald (the father) by force took Sharon from her mother in England and brought her to his home in Greene County, Arkansas.\n(d) On August 9, 1965 the trial court (on application by Gerald), ivithout notice to Valerie, gave temporary custody of Sharon to Gerald. A hearing on the merits ivas set for November 1, 1965.\n(e) Valerie came from England to be present for the hearing on November 1.\n(f) On October 30, 1965 Gerald left the state with Sharon. He is still at large, he still has Sharon, and Valerie is still looking for help.\n.The Only Point at Issue. Did the trial court have jurisdiction, after expiration of the court term, to give Gerald legal custody of Sharon 1\nIn our original opinion we held the trial court had jurisdiction, citing numerous cases in support. The essence of the citations is \u201c. . . that minors are Avards of chancery court.\u201d A careful reading of the cited cases reveals that in each of them the interested parties had been given notice. This Court has never held (and I trust never will hold) that a chancery court has jurisdiction over all the minor children within its district\u2014 even without notice to their parents. In my opinion the Order of August 9 was void.\nIt is my conclusion therefore that the trial court in this instance had no jurisdiction to change its decree of May 28, 1965 without notice to Valerie. This is because the term of court expired on July 2, 1965 and the temporary order was made on August 9, 1965.\n(a) In Karoley v. A. R. & T. Electronics, 235 Ark. 609, 363 S. W. 2d 120, we held that chancery court has power to set aside its decree toithout notice before the term lapsed, but that after the term had lapsed, it had no such power. At page 615 (Ark. Reps.) we said:\n\u201cAfter the lapse of the April term, the Chancery Court did not have the power to set aside the judgment of June 29th, unless the Garnishee complied with \u00a7 29-506 et seq. Ark. Stats. ...\u201d\nThese sections, of course, require notice.\n(b) In 17 A Am. Jur. \u00a7 850, Divorce and Separation, there is this statement:\n\u201cIn proceedings for the modification of decrees in divorce relative to the custody of minor children, proper notice to the adverse party and an opportunity to be heard are required, whether or not provided for by statute. An order changing custody, entered without notice, is void and cannot be enforced.\u201d (Emphasis ours.)\nAs noted previously, there is a statute in this State which requires notices.\n[See original opinion 240 Ark. 903, 403 S. W. 2d 63.]",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ray A. Goodtvin, Kirsch, Cathey & Broivn, for appellant.",
      "No brief filed for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Swindle v. Bradley, Chancellor\n5-3941\n406 S. W. 2d 324\nOpinion delivered May 23, 1966\nDissenting opinion filed September 19, 1966\n[Rehearing denied June 6, 1966.]\nRay A. Goodtvin, Kirsch, Cathey & Broivn, for appellant.\nNo brief filed for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0065-01",
  "first_page_order": 87,
  "last_page_order": 89
}