Williams v. Crosby
| Decision Date | 01 July 1903 |
| Citation | 45 S.E. 282,118 Ga. 296 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS. v. CROSBY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
COURTS—JURISDICTION—HABEAS CORPUS-DIVORCE—CONTROL OF CHILD.
1. The duty of the state, as parens patriae, and the jurisdiction of a habeas corpus court, are continuing, and not limited to the date of a divorce.
2. A decree in a divorce suit awarding the child to one of the parents is prima facie evidence of the legal right to its custody, but is not conclusive in habeas corpus proceedings, where neglect or mistreatment of the child, or unfitness of the oarent arising since the date of the decree, is involved.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Baxley; J. I. Carter, Judge.
Habeas corpus proceedings by Ardelia Crosby against Isham Williams. Judgment for petitioner, and respondent brings error. Reversed.
W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.
N. J. Holton, for defendant in error.
LAMAR, J. Ardelia Crosby, the mother, brought habeas corpus proceedings against her former husband, Isham Williams, for the custody of their minor child. The respondent alleged that since the divorce the mother had remarried, and had kept the child under her care for nine years, during which timeshe had neglected it, failed to give it an education, refused to allow it to attend church or school, failed to supply it with proper clothing, and forced it to labor in the fields; that the father was both able and j willing to maintain and educate the child, and would give bond so to do; that, if he | was not entitled to the possession, he prayed that the court would award her to the custody of some proper person. On the hearing the petitioner offered in evidence a copy of the decree in the divorce suit awarding the child to the mother. The respondent objected to this evidence on the ground that it was not accompanied by a transcript of the entire record in the case, "and that such a judgment did not operate as an estoppel in a habeas corpus proceeding."
The decree being offered in evidence to create an estoppel, it was inadmissible, except "when accompanied with a complete and duly authenticated copy of the proceedings in which such decree was rendered." Kerchner v. Frazier, 106 Ga. 437, 32 S. E. 351. But having been admitted over objection, the court thereupon struck that part of the respondent's answer which alleged that the mother was not now a proper person for the care of the child, and as to her failure to educate, train, or properly clothe the little girl. In pursuance of this ruling he also excluded all the evidence offered by the respondent to show the neglected condition of the child. This was error. If the pleadings and evidence had related solely to the fitness of the mother, a properly authenticated copy of the divorce proceedings, with a decree awarding the child to* her, would have established her legal right to its control. Hammond v. Hammond, 90 Ga. 527, 16 S. El 265. In that case no change in the status of the parties had taken place between the date of the divorce and the institution of the proceedings for habeas corpus (page 528, 90 Ga., and page 265, 16 S. E.) and the original record shows that the child was as much...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. Parkerson
...helpless and the innocent. They are the wards of the court, the hope of the State, and the seed corn of the future." Williams v. Crosby, 118 Ga. 296, 298, 45 S.E. 282 (1903). Acting as parens patriae, the government can require that children be educated, inoculated against disease, restrain......
-
Perkins v. Courson
...children. This court stated that Code § 74-108 must be construed with Code § 50-121. Then, applying the law as stated in Williams v. Crosby, 118 Ga. 296, 45 S.E. 282, it held that ordinarily such transfer of parental power by the father where the mother is deal would be valid, but here ther......
-
Clark v. Wade
...para. II. 52. See In re J.C., 242 Ga. 737, 738, 251 S.E.2d 299 (1978). 53. See id. at 738, 251 S.E.2d 299 (quoting Williams v. Crosby, 118 Ga. 296, 298, 45 S.E. 282 (1903)). 54. See 242 Ga. at 738-739, 251 S.E.2d 55. Froug v. Harper, 220 Ga. 582, 585, 140 S.E.2d 844 (1965). 56. See Gravely ......
-
Brandon v. Brandon
... ... the child, or unfitness of the parent since the date of the ... decree, is involved. Williams v. Crosby, 118 Ga ... 296, 45 S.E. 282; Barlow v. Barlow, 141 Ga. 535, 81 ... S.E. 433, 52 L.R.A. (N. S.) 683; Milner v. Gatlin, ... 143 Ga. 816, ... ...