State Ex Rel. Glaser v. Vickner
State Ex Rel. Glaser v. Vickner, 102 So. 593 (La. 1925).
Cited by
- Carlson v. Keathley 125 So. 2d 639 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Cox v. Cox 33 So. 2d 500 La. 1947
- Guidry v. Guidry 20 So. 2d 309 La. 1944
- State v. McDonald 20 So. 2d 6 La. 1944
- Wilson v. Wilson 12 So. 2d 258 La. 1943
- Hattier v. Martinez 1 So. 2d 51 La. 1941
- Downey v. Downey 164 So. 160 La. 1935
- Tate v. Tate 113 So. 370 La. 1927
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Prieto v. St. Alphonsus Convent of Mercy 52 La. Ann. 631
- 27 So. 153 not in our corpus
- Ex parte Ryan 124 La. 286
- Tardy v. Carra 147 La. 98
- State ex rel. Birch v. Baker 147 La. 319
- Hahn v. King 109 La. 161
Opinion text
O’NIELL, O. J. This is a mandamus proceeding to compel a judge of the civil district court to grant a suspensive appeal from a judgment making a writ of habeas corpus absolute, and ordering the defendants to deliver over to the plaintiff his five year old child. The child’s mother is dead. The defendants, relators in this proceeding, are the maternal grandparents and a maternal aunt of the child. Although there seems to be no right of appeal from a judgment that does nothing more than to make a writ of habeas corpus absolute, there is a right of appeal from a judgment affecting the custody or care of a child. Section 10 of article 7 of the Constitution declares that this court “shall have appellate jurisdiction of all suits * * * involving the tutorship of minors, * * * or custody of children,” etc. The issuing of a writ of habeas corpus in such case does not deprive either party of his or her right to appeal from the final judgment saying who shall have the custody of the child. Prieto v. St. Alphonsus Convent of Mercy, 52 La. Ann. 631 , 27 So. 153 , 47 L. R. A. 656; Ex parte Ryan, 124 La. 286 , 50 So. 161 ; Tardy v. Carra, 147 La. 98 , 84 So. 508 ; State ex rél. Birch v. Baker, 147 La. 319 , 84 So. 796 . Whether the court of original jurisdiction in such case would ever be warranted in granting a suspensive appeal is doubtful. It is sufficient to say that the party against whom the judgment is rendered in such case has not an absolute right to a suspensive appeal, or an appeal which would stay execution of the judgment. State ex rel. Hahn v. King, 109 La. 161 , 33 So. 121 . .The relief prayed for. by the relators is denied at their cost, reserving their right to take a devolutive appeal from the judgment complained of.