Commonwealth v. Addicks

5 Binn. 520, 1813 Pa. LEXIS 31
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJuly 10, 1813
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 5 Binn. 520 (Commonwealth v. Addicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. Addicks, 5 Binn. 520, 1813 Pa. LEXIS 31 (Pa. 1813).

Opinion

Tilghman C. J.

We have considered the law, and are of opinion, that although we are bound to free the person from all illegal restraints, we are not bound to decide who is entitled to the guardianship, or to deliver infants to the custody of any particular person. But we may in our discretion do so, if we think that, under the circumstances of the case, it ought to be done. For this we refer to the cases of The King v. Smith, 2 Stra. 982, and The King v. Delaval, 3 Burr. 1436. The .present case is attended with peculiar and unfortunate circumstances. We cannot avoid expressing our disapprobation of the mother’s conduct, although so far as regards her treatment of the children, she is in no fault. They appear to have been well taken care of in all respects. It is to them, that our anxiety is principally directed; and it appears to us, that considering their tender ,sige, they stand in need of that kind of assistance, which can .fee ¡afforded by none so well as a mother. It is on their ac[522]*522count, therefore, that exercising the discretion with which the ^aw has invested us, we think it best, at present, not to take them from her. At the same time, we desire it to be distinctly understood, that the father is not to be prevented from seeing them. If he does not choose to go to the house of their mother, she ought to send them to him, when he desires it, taking it for granted that he will not wish to carry them abroad, so much as to interfere with their education.

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

Related

Haaland v. Brackeen
599 U.S. 255 (Supreme Court, 2023)
Hiller v. Fausey
904 A.2d 875 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2006)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Spriggs v. Carson
323 A.2d 273 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Lucas v. Kreischer
299 A.2d 243 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fortunes v. Manos
13 A.2d 886 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Commonwealth v. McFadden
21 Pa. D. & C. 7 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1934)
Swoyer v. Swoyer
145 A. 190 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1929)
Commonwealth ex rel. Black v. Black
79 Pa. Super. 409 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Commonwealth v. Strickland
27 Pa. Super. 309 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Hibbette v. Baines
78 Miss. 695 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1900)
United States ex rel. Schneider v. Sauvage
91 F. 490 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania, 1899)
Commonwealth ex rel. Sage v. Sage
28 A. 863 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1894)
Merritt v. Swimley
82 Va. 433 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1886)
McGlennan v. Margowski
90 Ind. 150 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
McKim v. McKim
12 R.I. 462 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1879)
In re Jackson
15 Mich. 417 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1867)
State ex rel. Sharpe v. Banks
25 Ind. 495 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1865)
Wand v. Wand
14 Cal. 512 (California Supreme Court, 1860)
In re Barry
42 F. 113 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1844)
Mercein v. People ex rel. Barry
25 Wend. 63 (New York Supreme Court, 1840)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 Binn. 520, 1813 Pa. LEXIS 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-addicks-pa-1813.