Wells v. Andrews

Mississippi Supreme Court
Wells v. Andrews, 60 Miss. 373 (Miss. 1882)
Campbell

Wells v. Andrews

Opinion of the Court

Campbell, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellant was the lawfully constituted guardian of the minors, appointed by the proper court in Tennessee, from whence they were removed, at the instance of their grand*376mother, and they should have been committed to the custody of their guardian, under the circumstances of this case. They were domiciled in Tennessee, and the jurisdiction of the courts, of that State over them, and their estate there was not. destroyed by their removal, by their relatives, to Mississippi.

The judgment is reversed, and the custody of the minors-awarded to the appellant.

Reference

Full Case Name
D. C. Wells v. E. G. Andrews
Cited By
4 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Guardian and “Ward. Guardian appointed in another State. Domicile of minor. Case in judgment. A. and wife, who were residents of Hardeman County, Tennessee, died, the former in 1881, the latter in 1882, leaving two minor children who then became the owners of an estate of realty and personalty in that county, worth about $5,000. It was a last wish of each of the parents, that W- should take charge of the children and manage their estates. Accordingly, W. applied to the proper court in Hardeman County for letters of guardianship, and, after a litigation of some months, was appointed guardian of the children. On the same day that he went to make application for such letters, the grandparents of the children, in the absence of W., caused them to be taken by force from the home of their deceased parents, where they were staying with 'W.’s wife, into Benton County, Mississippi, where the grandparents reside. W. came to this State and sued out a writ of habeas corpus to obtain the custody of the children; hut after hearing testimony pro and con upon his application, the judge refused to grant his petition. Held, that the children were domiciled in Tennessee, and the jurisdiction of the courts of that State over them and their estates there was not destroyed by their removal into this State; and as W. is their lawfully constituted guardian, appointed by the proper court of Tennessee, they should h ave been committed to his custody.