Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0324-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Joel E. Brumager, Plaintiff in Error, v. Joseph Johnson and Daisy Johnson, Defendants in Error.
    Gen. No. 23,507. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. William Fenimobe Cooper, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded with directions.
    Opinion filed January 28, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Proceeding by the People of the State of Illinois on the relation of Joel E. Brumager, petitioner, against Joseph Johnson and Daisy Johnson, his wife, respondents, of habeas corpus for the custody of Jane Brumager, 6 years old, daughter of the relator. Prom a decree awarding the child to the respondents, petitioner brings error.
    GL A. Buresh, for plaintiff in error.
    Samuel Peterson, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, aam| topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

Abstract of. the Decision.

1. Infants, § 4 —what is principal consideration in awarding custody of child. The principal consideration moving the court, in awarding the custody of a minor child under a proceeding in habeas corpus, is the welfare of the child, and where opposing claimants are equally responsible courts will favor the claims of-those who stand in relationship to the child.

2. Infants, § 4*—determination of comparative merits of claimants of child. A determination as to the custody of a minor child, in a proceeding in habeas corpus, does not necessarily involve a decision upon the comparative merits of the respective claimants.

3. Infants, § 4*—when custody of child given to uncle and aunt. In a habeas corpus proceeding, held that the uncle and aunt of a minor child should be awarded its custody, on grounds of relationship, notwithstanding another claimant who was unrelated was equally proper and fit to have its custody.