Ex parte Turner
| Citation | 167 P. 1019,86 Or. 590 |
| Parties | EX PARTE TURNER. v. HENDRYX ET AL. TURNER |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1917 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Department 1.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; C. U. Gantenbein, Judge.
In the matter of Charles R. Turner, an infant. Petition by R. W. Turner for a writ of habeas corpus against James T. Hendryx and another to obtain the custody of the infant. From a judgment denying the petition, petitioner appeals. On motion to dismiss. Motion denied.
Appeal from denial of petition for habeas corpus to obtain custody of infant will not be dismissed because of pendency of writ of review to decree of county court entered on same day as judgment appealed from, giving defendants custody of infant in adoption proceedings.
W. B. Layton, of Portland ( Hurlburt & Layton, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant. J. C. McCue, of Portland, for respondents.
On motion to dismiss appeal. Respondents move to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the Multnomah county court has disposed of the matter by a decree awarding the child in question to them under a petition for the adoption of the boy. An investigation discloses that this proceeding was begun in the circuit court on March 13, 1917, and that before answering herein defendants filed a petition in the county court, asking for the adoption of the child upon the ground that the father had abandoned it. The decrees were both made and entered on March 23d. Since the appeal was perfected in this case a writ of review has been issued, and is now pending in the circuit court in the adoption proceedings. This state of facts is not ground for the dismissal of an appeal. 4 C.J. 586. The motion is therefore denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newman, Application of
...169 Or. 320, 128 P.2d 951; Richards v. Collins, 45 N.J.Eq. 283, 17 A. 831; Ex parte Bush, 240 Mich. 376, 215 N.W. 367; Ex parte Turner, 86 Or. 590, 167 P. 1019, 169 P. 109; Green v. Campbell, 35 W.Va. 698, 14 S.E. 212; Ex parte Parker, 195 Okl. 224, 156 P.2d 584; Application of Habeck, 75 S......
-
Croze, Application of
...Or. 320, 128 P.2d 951, 953-954; Richards v. Collins, 45 N.J.Eq. 283, 17 A. 831; Ex parte Bush, 240 Mich. 376, 215 N.W. 367; Ex parte Turner, 86 Or. 590, 167 P. 1019, 169 P. 109; Green v. Campbell, 35 W.Va. 698, 14 S.E. 212; Ex parte Parker, 195 Okl. 224, 156 P.2d 584; Application of Habeck,......
-
Ex parte Yahola
...... the rules and remedies associated with equity actions are. applicable. Murphree v. Hanson, 197 Ala. 246, 72 So. 437; Jain v. Priest, 30 Idaho, 273, 164 P. 364;. In re Sidle, 31 N.D. 405, 154 N.W. 277; Knapp v. Tolan, 26 N.D. 23, 142 N.W. 915, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 83; Ex. parte Turner, 86 Or. 590, 167 P. 1019, 169 P. 109. . . Both by. statute and the common law the father is charged with the. support of his minor, unmarried, legitimate child. Such duty. is unquestioned. All parties who could be interested or. affected were properly before the court. ......
- Ex parte Turner