Coltman v. Hall

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Coltman v. Hall

31 Me. 196

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1850

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 Me. 196 (Coltman v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coltman v. Hall, 31 Me. 196 (Me. 1850).

Pincite

Opinion

Shepley, O. J. orally.

The statute of 1821 provided that, in a case like this, the defendant should have judgment. The mere fact that the defendant was guardian, was a defence. Bridges v. Bridges, 13 Maine, 408. The provision of the Revised Statute is different. Under it the defendant must show something further than his guardianship. He is to show himself entitled to the custody of the child, as his ward. Has this been done ? By chap. 110, sect. 5, the custody pertains to the guardian, only when there is no father or mother competent to transact their own business. In this case, the child had neither father or mother. The mother-in-law is not within the statute. There was then no person entitled to the custody, above the guardian. True, the plaintiff was educating the child under a gift by the father. But the gift was not by last will; it was merely verbal ; it cannot operate against the statute. Nonsuit confirmed.

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

Shepley, O. J. orally.

The statute of 1821 provided that, in a case like this, the defendant should have judgment. The mere fact that the defendant was guardian, was a defence. Bridges v. Bridges, 13 Maine, 408. The provision of the Revised Statute is different. Under it the defendant must show something further than his guardianship. He is to show himself entitled to the custody of the child, as his ward. Has this been done ? By chap. 110, sect. 5, the custody pertains to the guardian, only when there is no father or mother competent to transact their own business. In this case, the child had neither father or mother. The mother-in-law is not within the statute. There was then no person entitled to the custody, above the guardian. True, the plaintiff was educating the child under a gift by the father. But the gift was not by last will; it was merely verbal ; it cannot operate against the statute. Nonsuit confirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Me. 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coltman-v-hall-me-1850.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack