Henderson v. Shiflett

31 S.E. 186, 105 Ga. 303, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 508
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 26, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 31 S.E. 186 (Henderson v. Shiflett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henderson v. Shiflett, 31 S.E. 186, 105 Ga. 303, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 508 (Ga. 1898).

Opinion

Lewis, J.

The only question presented by this record is, •whether or not the mother of a bastard child has the right to file ■ objections to proceedings instituted by its father for the purpose • of legitimating the child. The natural ties of affection which bind the mother to her offspring certainly give her the deepest -concern and interest in its welfare; and, independently of any : statute, it would seem that she would have a right to be heard in -court whenever steps are taken to place her child under the com trol or in the custody of another. It is true in this case that ■the plaintiff stated on the trial he was willing for the mother to retain the custody of the child; but even if such an agreement -could be binding in a proceeding of this sort, it does not provide for the welfare of the child in the event the mother should ■die during its minority. The statute (Civil Code, §2494) provides that when such application is made, the mother, if alive, •shall have notice. There would be no sense in such a require.ment of notice if the mother were not allowed to be heard in the ■case. The law is not mandatory upon the judge to grant the -prayer of the petitioner simply upon proof of the fact that he is the father of the child; but it says that he “may pass an order ■ declaring said child to be legitimate.” As to whether or not it .'is proper to grant such an order would depend upon- the facts •and circumstances presented to thé court upon the hearing. His refusing the application in the present case was not only no •abuse of discretion, but was a wise, just, and humane exercise of it. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

In Re Application of Ashmore
293 S.E.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Best v. Acker
211 S.E.2d 188 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Bennett v. Day
89 S.E.2d 674 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Murphy v. Thomas
89 Ga. App. 687 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 S.E. 186, 105 Ga. 303, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-shiflett-ga-1898.