Jones v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 25 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 627 |
| Citation | 214 Ala. 348,108 So. 68 |
| Parties | JONES v. BRYANT. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Petition of Thomas R. Bryant for habeas corpus to C.C. Jones. From decree overruling motion to strike allegations of, and demurrer to, petition, respondent appeals. Affirmed.
Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellant.
Frank M. Savage, of Center, for appellee.
The petition is for habeas corpus to try the right of custody of an infant. It is immaterial by what pleading the question may be presented; it is a civil procedure that is governed by the question of fact, with the present and future welfare and interest of the child as the controlling factor. Powell v. Johnson, 104 So. 526, 213 Ala. 259; Tillman v Walters (Ala.Sup.) 108 So. 62; Kirkbride v Harvey, 35 So. 848, 139 Ala. 231; Children's Aid Soc. v. Davis, 100 So. 325, 211 Ala. 344.
In the application of this principle in the light of the public policy of this state, it has been held that the jurisdiction conferred on juvenile courts did not deprive a proper tribunal, a court of equity, of its original jurisdiction in the premises to examine the facts in the ascertainment of the best interest and welfare of the infant. Ex parte Jackson 103 So. 558, 212 Ala. 496; Ortman v. Ortman, 82 So 417, 203 Ala. 167; McDaniel v. Youngblood, 77 So. 674, 201 Ala. 260; Coleman v. Coleman, 73 So. 473, 198 Ala. 222. And in the case of Murphree v. Hanson, 72 So. 437, 197 Ala. 246, this court declared that no proceeding concerning the custody of a minor can become a matter of res judicata so as to affect a court of equity in the exercise of its paramount jurisdiction over minors brought within its control. McEntire v. McEntire, 104 So. 804, 213 Ala. 328.
Does it result from the foregoing that there was reversible error in the action of the court in refusing to strike from the petition the allegations relating to the juvenile court of Fulton county, Ga., and in overruling appellant's demurrer to the petition? It is apparent that no question of res judicata is presented. The matter of cordial relation between the states and the best interest of the child will be considered on the hearing. A court of equity would not force the execution of the decree of the court of Georgia indicated by the pleading, without an examination of the merits thereof as to the best interest and welfare of the child. And,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan
...in this jurisdiction. Ortman v. Ortman, 203 Ala. 167, 82 So. 417; McAlister v. McAlister, 214 Ala. 345, 347, 107 So. 843; Jones v. Bryant, 214 Ala. 348, 108 So. 68. allowance in the case at bar will be considered and construed in accordance with its substance and not its mere form. If, when......
-
Porter v. Porter
... ... Cabaniss, ... Johnston, Cocke & Cabaniss, of Birmingham, for appellant ... Black & ... Fort and G. Ernest Jones, all of Birmingham, for appellee ... [112 So. 647.] ... THOMAS, ... The ... right to review on motion for mandamus is ... principles of equity and law in the light of the best ... interest and welfare of the infants. Jones v ... Bryant, 214 Ala. 348, 108 So. 68 ... We have ... carefully considered all the evidence, and the rule nisi is ... awarded, writ to issue to the ... ...
-
M.F. v. W.W.
...decide the custody dispute based on its determination as to the present and future welfare of the child. See, e.g., Jones v. Bryant, 214 Ala. 348, 108 So. 68 (1926). That observation appears especially relevant in this case, in which the trial court assumed that, by vacating the 2008 judgme......
-
Sparkman v. Sparkman
...192 Ala. 280, 68 So. 351; McEntire v. McEntire, 213 Ala. 328, 104 So. 804; West v. Chandler, 201 Ala. 260, 77 So. 674; Jones v. Bryant, 214 Ala. 348, 108 So. 68; Porter v. Porter (Ala.Sup.) 112 So. The same rules govern courts of equity whether jurisdiction is invoked by habeas corpus or by......