Proffer v. Stewart

Decision Date17 May 1935
Citation82 S.W.2d 468,259 Ky. 445
PartiesPROFFER v. STEWART, County Judge, et al.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, McCracken County.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Mrs. Rosa Proffer against Brady M Stewart, county judge, and another to obtain the legal custody of Kenneth Proffer, an infant. From an order denying the writ, Mrs. Rosa Proffer appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

M. E Gilbert, of Paducah, for appellant.

Brady M. Stewart, of Paducah, for appellees.

CLAY Chief Justice.

A few years ago Rosa Proffer and her husband separated. The husband took their infant child, Kenneth Proffer, and turned him over to Arch Richards, who lived in Ballard county. The father has since disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. The child remained with Arch Richards and wife until the month of February, 1934, when his mother, Rosa Proffer, appeared at the Richards home, took forcible possession of him, and carried him to McCracken county. In a subsequent proceeding before the county judge, Arch Richards was given the custody of the child, subject to the further orders of the court.

A few days later Mrs. Proffer applied to the judge of the McCracken circuit court for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied. She appeals.

At the outset we are met by the contention that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The point is well taken. The jurisdiction of this court extends only to the final orders and judgments of inferior courts, and not to the orders or judgments which judicial officers are authorized to make out of court. The proceedings upon a writ of habeas corpus are not required by the statute to take place in court, but the officer who issues the writ may require it to be returned and may hear and determine the matter at any place he may designate. The order that he makes on such an occasion is merely the order of a judge or justice, and not an order of court. Therefore, no appeal lies from an order granting or disallowing a writ of habeas corpus, and the rule applies to all cases where one is detained without lawful authority, including cases involving the legal custody of infant children. Weddington v. Sloan, 15 B. Mon 147; In re Gill's Petition, 92 Ky. 118, 17 S.W 166, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 351; Broadwell v. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. 15, 32 S.W. 141, 17 Ky. Law Rep. 564; Mann v. Russell, 60 S.W. 522, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 1340; Rallihan v. Gordon, 176 Ky. 471, 195 S.W. 783; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ex parte Sullivan
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1948
    ... ... 399, 253 ... N.W. 744; Thomas v. State, 215 Ala. 1, 109 So. 607; ... Heisler v. State, 21 Ala.App. 416, 109 So. 124; ... Proffer v. Stewart, 259 Ky. 445, 82 S.W.2d 468; ... France et al. v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. 122, 255 ... P. 815, 817; 52 A.L.R. 869. In the last-cited ... ...
  • Ex parte Brugneaux
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • January 5, 1937
    ... ... 399, 253 N.W. 744; ... Thomas v. State, 215 Ala. 1, 109 So. 607; ... Heisler v. State, 21 Ala.App. 416, 109 So. 124; ... Proffer v. Stewart, 259 Ky. 445, 82 S.W.2d 468; ... France et al. v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. 122, 255 ... P. 815; 52 A. L. R. 869. In the last cited case, ... ...
  • Bragg v. Knauf
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • February 25, 1955
    ... ... Weddington v. Sloan, 15 B. Mon. 147, 54 Ky. 147; Proffer v. Stewart, 259 Ky. 445, 82 S.W.2d 468. Had the proceeding been regarded as a civil action throughout these many years, it would likely have been ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT