Bird v. Bird

Michigan Supreme Court

Bird v. Bird

13 N.W.2d 272, 308 Mich. 230, 1944 Mich. LEXIS 223

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1944

DocketDocket No. 69, Calendar No. 42,450.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 13 N.W.2d 272 (Bird v. Bird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bird v. Bird, 13 N.W.2d 272, 308 Mich. 230, 1944 Mich. LEXIS 223 (Mich. 1944).

Pincite

Opinions

Boyles, J.

I concur in reversal and in dismissing plaintiff’s petition for the writ bf habeas corpus. Justice Wiest writes that this baby was taken from the custody of the grandparents and returned to plaintiff under a writ issued by the circuit judge, and Justice Wiest directs the return of the child *234 forthwith to the defendant grandparents. While the circuit judge entered an order adjudging that plaintiff was entitled to the custody of said infant and directing the defendants to deliver her to the plaintiff, this order was stayed by this court on June 10, 1943, at which time all further proceedings in the court below were stayed by this court. On September 8, 1943, when leave to appeal was allowed, by order of this court this stay of proceedings was continued until the further order of this court. This baby has been and still is in the custody of the defendant grandparents. The case should be remanded to the lower court with directions to enter an order dismissing plaintiff’s petition, with costs to defendants.

North, O. J., and Starr, Btjtzel, Sharpe, and Reid, JJ., concurred with Boyles, J.

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

Boyles, J.

I concur in reversal and in dismissing plaintiff’s petition for the writ bf habeas corpus. Justice Wiest writes that this baby was taken from the custody of the grandparents and returned to plaintiff under a writ issued by the circuit judge, and Justice Wiest directs the return of the child *234 forthwith to the defendant grandparents. While the circuit judge entered an order adjudging that plaintiff was entitled to the custody of said infant and directing the defendants to deliver her to the plaintiff, this order was stayed by this court on June 10, 1943, at which time all further proceedings in the court below were stayed by this court. On September 8, 1943, when leave to appeal was allowed, by order of this court this stay of proceedings was continued until the further order of this court. This baby has been and still is in the custody of the defendant grandparents. The case should be remanded to the lower court with directions to enter an order dismissing plaintiff’s petition, with costs to defendants.

North, O. J., and Starr, Btjtzel, Sharpe, and Reid, JJ., concurred with Boyles, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.W.2d 272, 308 Mich. 230, 1944 Mich. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bird-v-bird-mich-1944.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack