Lindsay v. Lindsay

Decision Date26 October 1912
Citation99 N.E. 608,255 Ill. 442
PartiesLINDSAY et al. v. LINDSAY et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Merritt W. Pinckney, Judge.

Petition by Charles R. Lindsay, Jr., against Elizabeth Lindsay and others.Decree for petitioner, and defendants bring error.Demurrer to a plea filed to the right of defendants to prosecute the writ sustained.

James R. Ward, of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.

McEwen, Weissenbach, Shrimski & Meloan, of Chicago, for defendants in error.

FARMER, J.

On December 15, 1911, defendant in error Charles R. Lindsay, Jr., filed in the juvenile branch of the circuit court of Cook county a petition charging that William Lindsay, a male child under 17 years of age, was a dependent child and did not have proper parental care; that his father was dead and he was in the care of his mother, Elizabeth Lindsay, and Otoman Zar-Adusht Hanish; that his mother had neglected and failed to properly care for said child; and that she was an improper guardian and wholly unable to care for, protect, train, and educate said child, by reason whereof he had become a dependent child.Summonswas issued against the plaintiffs in error Elizabeth Lindsay and Hanish, commanding them to appear before said court on the 4th day of January, 1912, and to have the said William Lindsay in open court.On the same day the petition was filed, December 15, 1911, the petitioner filed his affidavit stating that in his belief service of summons would be ineffectual to secure the presence of said child in court and that he should be taken into custody forthwith, ‘as his immediate health and welfare are being jeopardized by his present care and custody.’A warrant was issued, and under and by virtue of it the boy was taken by officers to the Detention Home, where he was placed in confinement.Upon assurance being given that he would be brought into court at the time set for hearing, the boy was released and turned over to his mother, and with her went to the home of a Miss Brauchmann, where they were staying at the time, and remained there until the 27th or 28th of December, when they disappeared.

On the day of the hearing, January 4, 1912, Hanish filed an answer to the petition, stating under oath that he never had control or custody of said child, or power to produce him in court, and had no knowledge of the place where the child was, or in whose custody or control he might be.The court appointed an attorney to represent the child, and in the absence of Mrs. Lindsay and child proceeded to hear the testimony of witnesses upon the question whether or not the child was dependent or had proper parental care, and also as to the circumstances relating to the disappearance of Mrs. Lindsay and her boy.On January 24th the court entered a decree defaulting Mrs. Lindsay and William Lindsay, and finding that said William Lindsay was a neglected and dependent child, having no guardian of his person other than his mother, his natural guardian; that the father of said child died in Philadelphia in November, 1902, leaving an estate to his said son from which an income amounting to $1,200 or $1,500 per year is paid to his mother, to be expended in his care, maintenance, and education, by the Girard Trust Company of Philadelphia, guardian of the estate of said child; that Mrs. Lindsay was not a proper person to have the care and custody of said child; and that he does not receive proper parental care.The decree further found that Hanish was the head of a religious organization to promote the Mazdaznan religion; that said religion purports to be the teaching of oriental philosophy and religion; that Mrs. Lindsay was a believer in said religion and its teachings, and recognized absolute spiritual and temporal power by Hanish over her religious beliefs, amounting to a religious fanaticism; that for a year last past she had been at divers places attending functions of said religion, had not kept the boy in school, and had permitted him to reside and travel with said Hanish at different places in and through the United States and Canada; and that Hanish was not a proper person to have control over said child.The court appointed the petitioner and Ellwood C. Lindsay, of Philadelphia, Pa., guardians of William Lindsay, and authorized them to take him into their care and custody wherever he may be found, and to present to the proper court of Philadelphia a showing regarding the conditions surrounding said child when they shall have secured his custody, ‘and abide by the orders of said court as to such care and custody.’The court adjudged Mrs. Lindsay in contempt of court for taking her child and leaving the jurisdiction of said court.

To review this judgment a writ of error has been sued out of this court by Hanish...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • Skirven v. Skirven
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 13, 1928
  • Hershenson v. Hershenson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 20, 1963
    ...In all these four cases, unlike the instant case, the appellant had been found in contempt of court. In three of them, Lindsay, Garrett and Burns, the contemnor had left the jurisdiction, and the nature of the contempt, in the words of Lindsay v. Lindsay, supra, was such as 'to hinder and embarrass the due course of procedure.' In the instant case the defendant was in California, was served there, and has remained there. The trial judge has decided that she has made a general appearance.defendant has acted in wilful and open defiance of the order of the Superior Court of Cook County and therefore she should not be permitted to prosecute this appeal. Four cases are cited by plaintiff. We will examine them. In Lindsay v. Lindsay, 255 Ill. 442, 99 N.E. 608, a proceeding in the Juvenile Branch of the Circuit Court to declare a child a dependent, the defendant mother gave assurances to the court that the child would be present at the time set for hearing. Instead, she took the...
  • Ex parte Butts
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • November 17, 1955
    ...California in MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13 Cal.2d 271, 89 P.2d 382, and in Knoob v. Knoob, 192 Cal. 95, 218 P. 568; the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in Casebolt v. Butler, 175 Ky. 381, 194 S.W. 305; the Supreme Court of Illinois in Lindsay v. Lindsay, 255 Ill. 442, 99 N.E. 608; the Supreme Court of Washington in Pike v. Pike, 24 Wash.2d 735, 167 P.2d 401, 163 A.L.R. In Knoob v. Knoob, supra, 192 Cal. at page 96, 218 P. at page 569, the California court has spoken directly...
  • Garrett v. Garrett
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 25, 1930
    ...the state of Illinois, asks this court to entertain a new suit (Great Northern Refining Co. v. Jeffris Lumber Co., 308 Ill. 342, 139 N. E. 594) in which he attacks the final decree of the court which he is defying. In Lindsay v. Lindsay, 255 Ill. 442, 99 N. E. 608, 609, a woman who had taken a child whose custody was in issue and left the jurisdiction of the court was adjudged in contempt because of such action. She joined in suing out a writ of error to review the judgment....
  • Get Started for Free