Henderson v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 09 September 1952 |
| Citation | 329 Mass. 257,107 N.E.2d 773 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. HENDERSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
George L. Wainwright, Brockton, for respondent.
Harold J. Field, Boston, for petitioner.
Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.
The petitioner wag granted custody of the minor child of the parties by a decree dated December 18, 1951, from which the respondent has appealed. The respondent was not present and offered no evidence at the hearing, which was held on December 17, 1951, and at which she participated through counsel. Previously, on October 31, 1951, while the child was in the temporary custody of the petitioner under a decree dated September 20, 1951, the respondent went to the petitioner's apartment, and took away the child, who was at the moment in the care of the petitioner's mother. The respondent then wrongfully sent or carried the child out of the Commonwealth to parts unknown without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner and in violation of the order for temporary custody. The respondent has at no time disclosed the whereabouts of the child even to her own counsel of record. The respondent has also appealed from a decree denying her motion to vacate the decree for temporary custody and from a decree denying her motion to dismiss the proceedings.
The petitioner has filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeals on the grounds that the respondent has wilfully violated the order for temporary custody and that in that and other respects she has been guilty of unconscionable, inequitable, and contemptuous conduct.
The respondent is admittedly in continued contempt of the court whose decrees she here seeks to reverse. In Campbell v. Justices of the Superior Court, 187 Mass. 509, 73 N.E. 659, 69 L.R.A. 311, a plaintiff, who was in contempt of court, was not allowed to go on with his case against the defendant as matter of right. On principle, we think that the respondent, who took and detains the child in violation of one or both of the custody decrees and has committed the crime of kidnapping, Commonwealth v. Bresnahan, 255 Mass. 144, 151, 150 N.E. 882, cannot as of right insist upon proceeding with her appeals while she is secreting the child and preventing an orderly settlement of the controversy.
Ample authority exists elsewhere for granting the petitioner's motion. McEntire v. McEntire, 213 Ala. 328, 104 N.E. 804; Knoob v. Knoob, 192 Cal. 95, 218 P. 568; MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connors v. Connors
...appeal by the litigant who continues in contempt of court in the proceeding from which he seeks to appeal. See Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N.E.2d 773, 773-74 (1952), denying right of a mother to appeal from decree awarding permanent custody of her minor child to its father, u......
-
Custody of a Minor
...with the child, in violation of the trial court's orders. Ellis v. Doherty, 334 Mass. 466, 136 N.E.2d 203 (1956). Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N.E.2d 773 (1952). See Pur-Shahriari v. Pur-Shahriari, 355 Mass. 632, 633, 246 N.E.2d 677 (1969). Cf. Commonwealth v. Andrews, 97 Mass......
-
Von Hake v. Thomas
...Marriage of Marks, 96 Ill.App.3d 360, 51 Ill.Dec. 626, 629, 420 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (1981) (30 days to comply); Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N.E.2d 773, 774 (1952) (30 days to comply); Prevenas v. Prevenas, 193 Neb. 399, 227 N.W.2d 29, 30 (1975) (20 days to comply); Hemenway v. ......
-
D'Aston v. D'Aston
...Marriage of Marks, 96 Ill.App.3d 360, 51 Ill.Dec. 626, 629, 420 N.E.2d 1184, 1187 (1981) (30 days to comply); Henderson v. Henderson, 329 Mass. 257, 107 N.E.2d 773, 774 (1952) (30 days to comply); Prevenas v. Prevenas, 193 Neb. 399, 227 N.W.2d 29, 30 (1975) (20 days to comply); Hemenway v. ......