Shaw v. Shaw

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Shaw v. Shaw

103 S.E. 526, 114 S.C. 300, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 119

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 28, 1920

Docket10440

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 S.E. 526 (Shaw v. Shaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shaw v. Shaw, 103 S.E. 526, 114 S.C. 300, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 119 (S.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

*302 This is an appeal from an order of Judge Gary made in a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by the petitioner-appellant, Thomas M. Shaw, to recover possession of his two children, John D. M. Shaw, about ten years old, and Franklin M. Shaw, about eight years old. The respondent, Bessie D. Shaw, is the wife of Thomas M. Shaw. The petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Laurens county, married to the respondent, and alleges that “about two years ago that Bessie D. Shaw left your petitioner against his will, and against the will of your’petitioner took said boys with her and carried them to the State of Missouri“that your petitioner has 'begged her and demanded of her that she return said boys to your petitioner, but this she has failed and refused to do.”

Mrs. Shaw was in Laurens county, but left the children, and was served with process in this case. Mrs. Shaw appeared on the day appointed for a hearing, did not answer, did not traverse the petition, but made a motion to quash the writ, on the sole ground that, as the petition showed on its face that the children ordered to be produced were outside of the State, to wit, in the State of Missouri, the Court was without jurisdiction to pass any order in the proceedings.

This objection was sustained by Judge Gary and proceedings dismissed, he holding that the Court was powerless and without jurisdiction. From this- order appellant appealed.

The order appealed from must be reversed. The Court acquired jurisdiction when the respondent was personally served. The children were the subject matter of the dispute. The question to be determined is whether father or mother should be awarded control. The Court clearly acquired jurisdiction when respondent was served. The order appealed from is reversed, and case remanded to Circuit Court for Laurens county for further proceedings.

Reversed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

*302 This is an appeal from an order of Judge Gary made in a habeas corpus proceeding instituted by the petitioner-appellant, Thomas M. Shaw, to recover possession of his two children, John D. M. Shaw, about ten years old, and Franklin M. Shaw, about eight years old. The respondent, Bessie D. Shaw, is the wife of Thomas M. Shaw. The petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Laurens county, married to the respondent, and alleges that “about two years ago that Bessie D. Shaw left your petitioner against his will, and against the will of your’petitioner took said boys with her and carried them to the State of Missouri“that your petitioner has 'begged her and demanded of her that she return said boys to your petitioner, but this she has failed and refused to do.”

Mrs. Shaw was in Laurens county, but left the children, and was served with process in this case. Mrs. Shaw appeared on the day appointed for a hearing, did not answer, did not traverse the petition, but made a motion to quash the writ, on the sole ground that, as the petition showed on its face that the children ordered to be produced were outside of the State, to wit, in the State of Missouri, the Court was without jurisdiction to pass any order in the proceedings.

This objection was sustained by Judge Gary and proceedings dismissed, he holding that the Court was powerless and without jurisdiction. From this- order appellant appealed.

The order appealed from must be reversed. The Court acquired jurisdiction when the respondent was personally served. The children were the subject matter of the dispute. The question to be determined is whether father or mother should be awarded control. The Court clearly acquired jurisdiction when respondent was served. The order appealed from is reversed, and case remanded to Circuit Court for Laurens county for further proceedings.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 526, 114 S.C. 300, 1920 S.C. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaw-v-shaw-sc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack