Blackburn v. Moore
Citation | 89 So. 745,206 Ala. 335 |
Decision Date | 12 May 1921 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 94 |
Parties | BLACKBURN et al. v. MOORE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1921
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Horace C. Wilkinson Judge.
Bill by Mrs. Monnie Blackburn Moore against J.W. Blackburn and others to modify a former decree awarding the custody of the child and for the custody of the child. From a decree granting the relief prayed, respondents appeal. Reversed and remanded.
Bankhead & Bankhead, of Jasper, for appellants.
Black & Harris, of Birmingham, for appellee.
The appeal in this case is from an order on the hearing of a writ of habeas corpus. The purpose of the writ was to determine the proper custody of a minor. In the determination of that issue the paramount consideration was the well-being of the child, and that was a question of fact. The object of a bill of exceptions is to make a matter of record what would not otherwise appear as such. This court, on appeal in cases at law, cannot review findings of fact unless the evidence upon which the trial court proceeded is duly authenticated by the certificate and signature of the trial judge and so made a part of the record. In equity the procedure is different. There the register certifies the record without the intervention of the judge, but the evidence considered in the cause must be shown by a note of testimony. In this case there is no bill of exceptions. I am unable, therefore, to review the facts, and, in consequence, I think the order appealed from should be affirmed. I cannot concur in the holding that a writ of habeas corpus puts on foot a proceeding in chancery, though it is conceded of course that one prime equitable consideration, viz. the welfare of the child, rather than the strict legal rights of parents, influences rulings in cases involving the custody of minor children. This proceeding was before the judge, not the court, and in no event can it be considered a proceeding such as the court of chancery is accustomed to entertain. In this view McCLELLAN and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur.
Lunday v. Jones, 204 Ala. 326, 85 So. 411, which has been frequently followed, right lately in Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; Milam-Morgan Co. v. State, 205 Ala. 315, 87 So. 348.
Reversed and remanded.
While the petition in this case is in form one for habeas corpus it does not merely seek the release or discharge of one illegally restrained, but the relief sought and obtained was the modification of a former decree of the circuit court in equity whereby it had awarded the custody and control of a minor child and was to all intents and purposes a proceeding in equity as distinguished...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. Martin
...Ala. 326, 85 So. 411; Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; Milam-Morgan Co. v. State, 205 Ala. 315, 87 So. 348; Blackburn v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 So. 745) there was no note of testimony as required by chancery 75, p. 1551, Code 1907. Hence there was no evidence before the cour......
-
Urbach v. Urbach
...or such judge in making such order as in his discretion may appear right and proper for the welfare of the child." In Blackburn v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 So. 745, a relating to the custody of a child was construed as a petition in equity, notwithstanding the fact that it was in the form of......
-
Sauvageau v. Sauvageau
... ... pleadings and evidence justify such relief. (Const. of Idaho, ... art. 5, sec. 1; secs. 1-707, 31-1007, I. C. A.; Blackburn ... v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 So. 745; 31 C. J. 993; ... Green v. Green, (Tex.) 146 S.W. 567; Horton v ... Horton, 75 Ark. 22, 86 S.W. 824, 5 ... ...
-
Broglan v. City of Huntsville
...203 Ala. 300, 82 So. 550; Lunday v. Jones, 204 Ala. 326, 85 So. 411; Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347; Blackburn v. Moore, 206 Ala. 335, 89 So. 745; Crews v. State ex rel. Patterson, Sol., 206 101, 89 So. 205; Conner v. State ex rel. Perry, Dep. Sol., 212 Ala. 360, 102 So. 809......