Hinman v. Craft
| Decision Date | 13 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | 37128. |
| Citation | 37 So.2d 770,204 Miss. 568 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HINMA v. CRAFT. |
Jeff Collins, of Laurel, for appellant.
Leonard B. Melvin, of Laurel, for appellee.
A writ of habeas corpus was sought by appellant in a petition before the chancellor of Jones County, and, upon hearing, custody of his two children was awarded to appellee. Appellant assigns for error that in view of the prior award of such custody of her by the Chancery Court of George County, the Chancellor was without jjurisdiction to alter such decree.
The parties are the parents of these children. They were divorced in 1939 by a decree of the Chancery Court of George County which awarded custody to the wife. She took the children to Alabama, in which state the father made two unsuccessful attempts to procure their possession by court order. In 1947 the mother agreed to allow the father to take the children to be placed in school in Alabama. The father, exceeding this permission, brought them to Jones County, Mississippi. The mother, appellant here, sued out a writ of habeas corpus in the county court. The proceedings were transferred to the chancery court of that county.
Upon the hearing evidence touching the welfare of the children was introduced over objection by the mother, who stood upon the decree of the Chancery Court of George County. The trial judge found that the mother was a fit person to retain custody, but refused to give controlling effect to the decree of the George County Chancery Court. We find this to be error.
Regardless of the right of the mother to invoke the former decree as a basis for her application for writ of habeas corpus, the latter remedy was not available to appellee as a device to amend the existing decree. Herndon v. Bonner, 97 Miss. 328, 52 So. 513. See also Cole v.
Cole 194 Miss. 292, 12 So.2d 425. It is true that in Leggett v. Leggett, Miss., 32 So.2d 189, 191, we held that an original proceeding in the form of habeas corpus would be adjudged in the light of the objects sought and the jurisdiction of the court, and treated as an action cognizable by the chancery court as such an that it retained exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of custody. We stated 'It would provoke endless confusion to permit one, or several, other courts to undertake to adjudicate the rights of the parties and best interest of this monor, at the instance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krohn v. Migues
...be valid on its face? We have said that a decree of the chancery court cannot be amended by a writ of habeas corpus. Hinman v. Craft, 204 Miss. 568, 37 So.2d 770 (1948). The general rule expressed by the text writer in 2 C.J.S. Adoption of Persons § 125, at 557 (1972) is as 'An adoption dec......
-
Bubac v. Boston
...the defendants were not parties to that decree." Id.; see also Mixon v. Bullard, 217 So.2d 28, 30 (Miss.1968); Hinman v. Craft, 204 Miss. 568, 575, 37 So.2d 770, 770-71 (1948). If the parties in the habeas corpus proceeding and original custody proceeding are identical, the chancery court i......
-
Wade v. Lee
...to modify the original court's decree. See also, Reynolds v. Riddell, 253 So.2d 834, 836-37 (Miss.1971); Hinman v. Craft, 204 Miss. 568, 575, 37 So.2d 770, 770-71 (1948). It is much too late to question that an exception to this general premise is recognized where, subsequent to the origina......
-
Smith v. Watson
...is not subject to attack by subsequent habeas corpus proceedings. Neal v. Neal, 238 Miss. 572, 119 So.2d 273 (1960); Hinman v. Craft, 204 Miss. 568, 37 So.2d 770 (1948); 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus Sec. 129 (1976). However, the habeas corpus court can disregard the prior decree where circumstan......