Carter v. Brett, 42 S.E. 348 (Ga. 1902). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter v. Brett, 42 S.E. 348 (Ga. 1902). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tenney v. Tenney (ga, 1958-06-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Tenney v. Tenney (2×)
Ga. · 1958 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carter v. Brett, 116 Ga. 114 (2) ( 42 S. E. 348 ); Fortson v. Fortson, 200 Ga. 116 ( 35 S. E. 2d 896 ); Parker v. Parker, 213 Ga. 198 ( 97 S. E. 2d 580 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hill v. Rivers (2×)
Ga. · 1946 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carter v. Brett, 116 Ga. 114 ( 42 S. E. 348 ); Richards v. McHan, 129 Ga. 275 ( 58 S. E. 839 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Allen v. Allen
Ga. · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Thornton v. Martin, 116 Ga. 115 ( 42 S. E. 348 ); Waters v. Waters, 167 Ga. 389 (3) ( 145 S. E. 460 ); Jackson v. Jackson, 179 Ga. 696 (4) ( 177 S. E. 591 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Allen v. Allen
Ga. · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Thornton v. Martin , 116 Ga. 115 ( 42 S.E. 348 ); Waters v. Waters , 167 Ga. 389 (3) ( 145 S.E. 460 ); Jackson v. Jackson , 179 Ga. 696 (4) ( 177 S.E. 591 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Chapin v. Cummings (2×)
Ga. · 1940 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carter v. Brett, 116 Ga. 114 ( 42 S. E. 348 ); Richards v. McHan, 129 Ga. 275 ( 58 S. E. 839 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sloan v. Jones (2×)
unknown court · 1908 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Carter v. Brett, 116 Ga. 114 ( 42 S. E. 348 ) ; Richards v. McHan, 129 Ga. 275 (58 S. E. 839 ).
Carter
v.
Brett
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Aug 8, 1902.
42 S.E. 348
W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff.
Eisii, Lewis.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
Eisii, J.

1. Where a father relinquishes the custody and control of his minor child to another, the latter, if a suitable and proper person to have such custody and control, is legally entitled thereto.

2. It is, on the hearing of a writ of habeas corpus, an improper exercise of discretion to render a judgment depriving one legally entitled to the custody of a minor child of the same and awarding such custody to another, when there is undisputed evidence showing the right and fitness of the former to have such custody, and no evidence to the contrary.

Submitted June 27, Decided August 8, 1902. Habeas corpus — certiorari. Before Judge Roberts. Irwin superior court. March 11, 1902. W. W. Bennett, for plaintiff.

3. It results from the application of what is laid down above to the present case, that the court erred m not sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lewis, J.-, absent.