TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Waite v. Washington

Caroline M. Waite, relator v. George Washington, sheriff

Waite v. Washington, 44 Mich. 388 (1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 19, 1880
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
44 Mich. 388
Cited by 5
Headnotes
Bastardy act — Compulsory support of infant. The Bastardy Act is to secure the public against the necessity of supporting bastard children; and the expense of enforcing it against the father of such a child falls on the public and not on the child’s mother. Mandamus lies to the sheriff to imprison a person convicted under the Bastardy Act when necessary to compel him to contribute to the child’s support; and the mother is a proper relator in applying for the writ.
Summary
Mandamus to require respondent to imprison a person convicted under the Bastardy Act on complaint of the relator.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Marston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Marston, C. J.

The primary object contemplated by the statute in proceedings under the Bastardy Act is the protection of the public against all possible danger of being obliged to support the child. With this object in view the father is required to contribute to its support, and to. insure compliance, security is required and imprisonment to compel the giving thereof. Such proceedings being for the benefit and protection of the public, the expense of the imprisonment must fall upon the people and not upon the mother of the child. This is the only correct conclusion that can be arrived at under the legislation and late decisions in this State.

It follows that the writ must issue.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1882–1883: 21976–1977: 11978–1979: 11994–1995: 118822026peak 1882 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976)
  2. In re Cannon11 N.W. 280 (Mich. 1882)
  3. Pridemore v. Williams282 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)
  4. People v. Harty13 N.W. 829 (Mich. 1882)
  5. Witt v. Seabrook533 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)

Most recent

  1. Witt v. Seabrook533 N.W.2d 22 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)
  2. Pridemore v. Williams282 N.W.2d 363 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)
  3. Artibee v. Cheboygan Circuit Judge243 N.W.2d 248 (Mich. 1976)
  4. People v. Harty13 N.W. 829 (Mich. 1882)
  5. In re Cannon11 N.W. 280 (Mich. 1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list