Allen v. Lathrum

245 P. 919, 139 Wash. 130, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 874
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMay 12, 1926
DocketNo. 19526. Department Two.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 245 P. 919 (Allen v. Lathrum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen v. Lathrum, 245 P. 919, 139 Wash. 130, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 874 (Wash. 1926).

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

This is a proceeding in habeas corpus, commenced in the superior court of Whitman eounty by J. Y, Allen to recover the custody of his daughter, Joyce Allen, a minor. The child’s mother died when it was two years of age, at which time it was given by *131 the father into the care of the respondents. Mrs. Lath-rum is an aunt of the child, and she with her husband have had the care of it for something more than eight years. Shortly after the marriage of the petitioner to his present wife, this action was commenced. Upon what appears to have been a careful consideration of the evidence presented at a rather complete and exhaustive hearing, the trial judge, upon findings full and sufficient for that purpose, entered judgment refusing to change the care, custody and control of the child until the further order of the court. The petitioner, J. V. Allen, has appealed.

This is a typical case wherein, notwithstanding the original and primary right of a parent, the great and leading object to be obtained is the welfare of the child. With this rule in mind, the case must be resolved upon the facts peculiar to it. A fair view of the facts could not be presented without largely detailing the testimony of a great number of witnesses, which in oúr opinion would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that, upon consideration of the oral arguments of respective counsel, their elaborate briefs and an examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that the judgment of the trial court was correct.

Affirmed.

Tolman, C. J., Mackintosh, Main, and Parker, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Parentage of LB
122 P.3d 161 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
Carvin v. Britain
155 Wash. 2d 679 (Washington Supreme Court, 2005)
Frederickson v. Becker
553 P.2d 1339 (Washington Supreme Court, 1976)
Fuhrman v. Arvin
153 P.2d 165 (Washington Supreme Court, 1944)
In Re the Welfare of Hudson
126 P.2d 765 (Washington Supreme Court, 1942)
In Re Day
65 P.2d 1049 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)
State ex rel. Day v. Long
189 Wash. 368 (Washington Supreme Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 P. 919, 139 Wash. 130, 1926 Wash. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-lathrum-wash-1926.