Her Minor Thing
Everything was going fine for hot young 25-year-old Jeana (Estella Warren) until her newscaster boyfriend accidentally revealed on TV that Jeana is still a virgin despite being in her mid 20s. Jeana is completely humiliated by this, and adding insult to injury is the fact that the revelation of her virginity has made her a target for every oversexed man in the immediate area, all of them determined to "make a real woman out of her". Noting dejectedly that since it was revealed that she is a virgin, every man who looks at her "wants a date", and all her optimistic romantic ideals have been shattered. Ultimately she cannot salvage her relationship with her newscaster boyfriend, but in the end, she does finally find a man, a photographer, who is decent enough to be the man to whom she finally loses her virginity.
Her Minor Thing
Jeana does IT for the Sacramento Fire Department. She and Tom, a self-confident local TV news reporter, are about to go on a cruise to Rio when he lets slip on TV that she is a virgin. It's a slow news week, so this becomes a story: the media pursue Jeana, she breaks up with Tom and wants the tickets or her cruise money back, and Tom can't believe she's serious. Her path crosses that of Paul, a photographer recently arrived from Texas who's also Tom's cameraman; he's had six serious relationships that have ended with his heart broken. A triangle of sorts develops. Will Jeana end up with either man? Will she end up on the cruise? And what about that minor thing?
He wastrying so hard to blend in, but everything he did, undermined his efforts. Shewondered why bother to come to a reading of an erotica novel if you were goingto be like that as if it was something to be ashamed of. She hated that sort ofbehavior because she never wanted to feel her books were something toembarrassed about. She was very proud of the moderate success she achievedwriting them.
Throughoutthe Q&A, her eyes kept flitting to him against her will, hoping that hewould say something, grace her with the sound of his voice. She bet he had asmooth, velvet-like baritone that would feel like a caress to her ears.However, he stayed disappointingly quiet and by the time of the signingsection, he had disappeared from view.
He smiledtoo, pressing a soft kiss to her forehead, before he straightened up again,undoing his bowtie, shirt, the cummerbund, finally his trousers. She had seenHenry in several states of underdressed before, both in person and in moviesand tv shows. However, there was something about watching him undressing forher, on their wedding night, that just set her heart racing, made butterfliesflutter in her belly, and heat rush through her veins. This was all hers. Hewas all his.
She wrapped her lips around his head, suckinglightly and Henry sat back on his heels, hand holding onto the duvet to keephimself from thrusting into the delicious heat as she took him inch by inchinto her mouth, her nails digging on the muscle of his thigh as she steadiedher breathing and paused as his head brushed the back of her throat.
Kaylee ben Yosef, a senior of the WKU English Department, obtained a paid internship position at Franklin Precision Industry (FPI) as a translator for Japanese employees. Ben Yosef is a Creative Writing major and a Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) minor local to Bowling Green. She has also studied Japanese at WKU with Instructor Paul Collins.
Ben Yosef first became interested in teaching English when Instructor Collins invited Dr. Alison Youngblood to speak to his class about the JET program and the TESL minor. Ben Yosef then switched her minor to TESL.
"Going out of bounds three times on floor was a little bit shocking, but I've always told them that if they're going to make a mistake, I want it to be made going 100 percent full-throttle, and that's what they were doing," Faehn said. "They were so hyped up and energized that the mistake came from that. I don't want them to make mistakes by holding back. That's a minor thing, but it was surprising that it was three in a row."
"I love the variety that we have in the lineup. Randy Stageberg is the most perfect and most beautiful beam starter. I know that when she goes up she is always going to nail her routine. The starting roles are just as key as the all-arounders, if not more, because they're the ones setting the tone for the lineup," Faehn said. "I'm really pleased with the depth and variety of the routines and the skill choice. You're not seeing the same thing over again. I think this is a really good balance of the group."
In an action by a mother and her husband to recover damages for injuries sustained by the mother's minor child by a former marriage, in which there are no pleadings respecting the minor's father, the said father was a necessary party to the suit.
Ordinarily, in this State, the father of a minor child is the only person authorized to bring suit for damages for injuries sustained by said minor, during minority, and where such suit is brought by the mother alone there must be both pleading and proof to show that the father no longer had any interest in the child's welfare.
Suit by Pearl Davis, joined by her husband, against Houston Oxygen Company, Incorporated, and Oliver O. Stanberry, for damages for injuries sustained by her minor son, Charles Applebhy, by her former husband. She sued for herself and as next friend of said minor. A judgment in favor of plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals, 145 S.W.2d 300, and defendant has brought error to the Supreme Court.
In an action to recover damages for injuries to a minor child, the father of said child is a necessary party to said suit, although he be divorced from the mother, who has brought the suit as next friend for the minor, and it was error for the Court of Civil Appeals to overrule their assignment that upon discovery of the fact that the father was not a party to the suit, the case should have been continued for the purpose of making the father a party thereto. Weimhold v. Hyde, 294 S.W. 899; Kelly v. Kelly, 329 Mo. 992, 47 S.W.2d 762; Hillsboro Cotton Mills v. King, 51 Tex. Civ. App. 518, 112 S.W. 132.
The failure to make the father of a minor child a party to a suit for the benefit for the minor, brought by his mother as next friend, which mother and father have been divorced, it was not error to not make the father a party to said suit, as the issues in a suit by the minor and one by the parents, or either of them, being severable and distinct and separate, the rights of the minor, after an errorless trial, should not be denied. Rules of Civil Procedure 434, 503, 505; Fall v. Weber, 47 S.W.2d 365; 33 Tex. Jur. 234.
Pearl Davis, joined by her present husband, Johnie Davis, filed this suit against Houston Oxygen Company, Inc., and Oliver O. Stanbury, for damages for injuries sustained by Charles Applebhy, Pearl's minor son, who, according to undisputed testimony, was by a former husband. The suit was on behalf of plaintiff for herself and as next friend for Charles. The jury returned a verdict for the mother for $4,000 and for $16,000 for the boy and judgment was rendered accordingly, except that part of the decree which directs one-half of the sum awarded in favor of the boy to be paid the attorneys representing plaintiffs as their attorney's fees and that the remaining one-half be delivered to the district clerk to be held for the minor until same can be paid over to him upon proper order of court. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment in all things, except as to the order directing payment of one-half of the minor's recovery to plaintiff's attorneys. 145 S.W.2d 300. Defendants' assignment of error complaining of the action of the trial court in that respect was sustained, but the trial court's judgment, according to the transcript of the proceedings in the Court of Civil Appeals, was "in all things affirmed." This discrepancy in the record passes out of the case upon this appeal, however, under our view that it is necessary to reverse and remand the cause for lack of a necessary party.
"It appearing from the undisputed evidence * * * that the father of the minor, Charles Applebhy, was alive and that he had been divorced from the mother * * *, the father of the minor, * * *, being under the legal duty of supporting * * * (him) during his minority, had an interest in the recovery and was therefore a necessary party to the suit, and when this was developed * * * the court should have continued the case and required that the father * * * be made a party."
It appears from the testimony that the minor (a colored boy) was fourteen years of age when injured; that the father, Charles Applebhy, and the minor's mother were once married, but divorced; and that the mother has been married to her present husband since the minor was a small boy. The father, now living at Abilene, Texas, was not made a party to the suit. The Court of Civil Appeals held that on the undisputed facts the mother was entitled to her son's services and earnings during minority and that she, for this reason, was entitled to sue for and appropriate as her separate property the damages she sustained on account of the injuries received by him. It was the view of the court also that the evidence shows the minor was abandoned and emancipated by his father.
1, 2 Defendants contend that the father, being charged with the legal duty of supporting and maintaining his son during his minority, has the correlative right to his services during minority and for this reason was a necessary party to the suit. We sustain that portion of the assignment which alleges the father should be made a party to the suit and that the trial court erred in not so requiring. Gully v. Gully, 111 Tex. 233, 231 S.W. 97, 15 A.L.R. 564; Hartman v. Chumley (Civ. App.), 266 S.W. 444; Belstrom v. Belstrom (wr. dism.), 144 S.W.2d 614; Weinhold v. Hyde, 294 S.W. 899; Trinity Lumber Company v. Conner (Civ. App.), 187 S.W. 1022. In the present record there is no pleading that the minor's father and mother are divorced, and, if divorced, what the decree provided with respect to the custody and maintenance of the minor. Nor is there any pleading as to whether the father failed to contribute to his support. In other words there is no pleading of any kind touching the minor's father. The Court of Civil Appeals erred in sustaining the action of the trial court in not requiring that the father be made a party. We are not to be understood in this connection, however, as here determining that the father has an interest in the minor's earnings regardless of what may be shown upon another trial. However, since ordinarily during marriage the only person authorized in this State to sue for damages suffered by the minor during minority (the husband having the management of the community property) is the father, there must be both pleading and proof, when the suit is brought by the mother alone, to bring the case from under the general rule referred to so that binding effect may be given the judgment. McIntire v. Chappell, 2 Tex. 378; Hillsboro Cotton Mills v. King, 57 Texas Civ. App. 518[ 57 Tex. Civ. App. 518], 112 S.W. 132, and authorities there cited. 041b061a72