Case Name: Ex Parte TURNER. TURNER v. HENDRYX
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1917-10-16
Citations: 86 Or. 590
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex Parte TURNER. TURNER v. HENDRYX.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 590–607

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied October 16, 1917.
Argued on tie merits October 3,
reversed December 11, 1917.
Ex Parte TURNER. TURNER v. HENDRYX.
(167 Pac. 1019; 169 Pac. 109.)
Habeas Corpus — Dismissal—Pendency of Proceedings.
1. An appeal from a judgment denying a petition for habeas corpus to obtain the custody of an infant will not be dismissed because respondents, by a decree of the County Court, entered on the same day as the judgment, were awarded custody of the child under a petition for adoption; a writ of review in the adoption proceedings having been issued and being pending in the Circuit Court.
ON THE MERITS.
Habeas Corpus — Appeal—Scope.
2. Sabeos corpus to determine right to custody of infant is equitable in nature, and the review on appeal is de novo, despite Section 669, L. O. L., providing for appeal in habeas corpus “in like manner and with like effect as in an action”; no impairment of the writ being within the legislative power, and the equitable nature, as to infants, having existed at common law.
[As to matters to be considered in determining the custody of child on habeas corpus, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914A, 740.]
Habeas Corpus — Custody of Infant — Rights.
3. Evidence that father, on death of child’s mother, and after statement of her sister, “Give the child to me and I will raise it,” said, “You shall have it,” does not justify the eourt, in habeas corpus on petition of the father, in ignoring his natural rights.
Habeas Corpus — Custody of Infant — Rights.
4. Where the father, on death of child’s mother, and after statement of her sister, “Give the child to me and I will raise it,” said, “You shall have it,” he could revoke such agreement.
Words and Phrases — “In Like Manner” — “Like.”
5. When the statute says that an appeal in a proceeding by habeas corpus shall be “in like manner * * as in an action,” it means that the mode of appealing is the same as the mode of appealing in an action at law (per Mr. Justice Harris, specially concurring, citing Words and Phrases, “Like”; “Like Manner”).
From Multnomah: Calvin U. Gantenbein, Judge.
On motion to dismiss appeal..
Motion denied.
Mr. John G. McGue, for the motion.
Messrs. Hurlburt & Layton, contra.
Department 1.
Authorities discussing the question of habeas corpus decree as to custody of infant as res judicata, see notes in 67 L. R. A. 783; 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 83. Reporter.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Respondents move to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the Multnomah County Court has disposed of the matter by a decree awarding the child in question to them under a petition for the adoption of the hoy. An investigation discloses that this proceeding was begun in the Circuit Court on March 13,1917, and that before answering herein defendants filed a petition in the County Court asking for the adoption of the child upon the ground that the father had abandoned it. The decrees were both made and entered on March 23d. Since the appeal was perfected in this case a writ of review has been issued and is now pending in the Circuit Court in the adoption proceedings. This state of facts is not grounds for the dismissal of an appeal: 4 C. J. 586. The motion is therefore denied. - Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice McBride, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice Harris concur.