TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Goodchild v. Foster

Elizabeth Goodchild v. Johh N. Foster, Superintendent of State Public School

Goodchild v. Foster, 17 N.W. 74 (Mich. 1883)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 24, 1883
Judges
Oampbtsll, Other
Citations
17 N.W. 7451 Mich. 5991883 Mich. LEXIS 642
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Habeas corpus for children senl to State public school. A circuit judge at chambers has jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus to get possession of children sent to the State Public School by order of the probate judge. The action of a circuit judge in habeas corpus proceedings is strictly judicial where no jury is required and the judge acts personally; and it need not be taken in open court or during term. A mother is not bound by an order made by a probate judge sending her child to the State Public School without any notice to her, if she was within the county, or to any of the child’s friends or relations; and she can sue out the writ of habeas corpus to regain their custody.
Summary
Certiorari to Hooker, J. Habeas Corpus. Respondent appeals. The fact that relator in babeas corpus proceedings is tbe mother of minors detained from her is not conclusive as to her right to their custody; it must further appear that it is for the welfare of the children to have them placed in her charge: Oorrie v. Gorrie 42 Mich. 509; Hurd on Habeas Corpus 462-3; Schouler’s Horn. Bel. § 248; a final adjudication upon the right of contending parties to the control, custody, nurture and education of a child is as much foreign to the nature of chamber powers as one where the possession and enjoyment of property are the purpose of the suit: Roioe v. Rowe 28 Mich. 357; Matter of Buddington 29 Mich. 472. Unauthorized absence of infants from legal custody is an imprisonment: Hurd on Habeas Corpus 454; the State courts, in all cases authorized by the laws of the State must issue the writ of habeas corpus, to inquire into the legality of the imprisonment of any person deprived of his liberty within the State : Matter of Spazngler 11 Mich. 810; in case of infants, the writ may issue without the privity of the child: People v. Meroein 3 Hill 899 ; and against its express wishes : Commonwealth v. Hamilton 6 Mass. 273 ; and the circuit judge has power to act in the premises at other times as well as in open court: Matter of Buddi/ngton 29 Mich. 475 ; Hurd on Habeas Corpus 456j Act 266 of 1881.

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

Opinion of the Court — Oampbtsll

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

Oampbtsll, J.

Mrs. G-oodchild brought habeas corpus to get possession of her children in the State public school, to which they had been sent under an order of Judge Dnrfee, probate judge of Wayne county. Despondent brought certiorari against the decision restoring them to her possession.

The objection made on the argument to the jurisdiction of the circuit judge is not made in the affidavit for the writ of certiorari. But we do not think there is any foundation for such an objection. Proceedings must be speedy to be valuable, and the long practice that has sanctioned such action is unquestionably correct. "Where no jury is required, and where the judge acts personally, we think his action under this writ is strictly judicial and need not be in open court at term. '

As no authority was shown which would bind the mother, the children were properly restored. The order of the judge of probate shows she was in the county, but no notice appears to have been given either to her or to any friends or relatives. The statute clearly contemplates and distinctly provides that parents and friends may be heard on the children’s behalf; and this involves an opportunity to be heard. As this was not shown, the mother was a stranger to the proceeding and it in no way bound her.

The proceedings must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1907: 11920: 11940: 119072026peak 1907 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Potter v. Frohbach112 N.W. 1087 (Wis. 1907)
  2. Oversmith v. Lake295 N.W. 339 (Mich. 1940)
  3. Karrib v. Bailey212 Mich. 502 (1920)

Most recent

  1. Oversmith v. Lake295 N.W. 339 (Mich. 1940)
  2. Karrib v. Bailey212 Mich. 502 (1920)
  3. Potter v. Frohbach112 N.W. 1087 (Wis. 1907)

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