Cunningham v. Thomas

25 Ind. 171
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1865·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Frazer, C. J.

This was a writ of habeas corpus obtained by the mother of a child of tender years, alleging that it was illegally restrained of its liberty.

A demurrer is not the proper method of testing the sufficiency of a return to such a writ. 2 G. & H., § 723, p. §18.

J. F. Gardner, for appellant. J, 8. Reid and J. Yaryan, for appellee.

The evidence supports the judgment below. No useful purpose would be attained by setting it out in this opinion.

The cause is so presented that we would be at liberty to deem the errors waived. Instead of an abstract we are furnished with an index to the transcript. An intelligible abridgment .of that part of the record which is necessary to be known, in order to pass upon the questions presented, is required.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Cunningham v. Thomas, 25 Ind. 171 (Ind. 1865).

25 Ind. 171 (Cunningham v. Thomas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buck v. Squires
142 N.E. 7 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
Kemper v. Metzger
81 N.E. 663 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1907)
Harrist v. Harrist
43 So. 962 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1907)
Slack v. Perrine
9 App. D.C. 128 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1896)
Ex parte Mooney
26 W. Va. 36 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1885)
Sturgeon v. Gray
96 Ind. 166 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Milligan v. State ex rel. Children's Home
97 Ind. 355 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
McGlennan v. Margowski
90 Ind. 150 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)