Legal Opinion

Wright v. Wright

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 15, 1806PublishedCited by 26 opinions

This was a writ de homine replegiando, brought in the name oi an illegitimate infant against his mother. Paul Wright, the putative father of the plaintiff, appeared bn his behalf to prosecute the suit, under the provision of the sixth section of the statute of Feb. 19, 1789, establishing the right to and the form of this writ, and the process was understood to have been commenced at his instance and expense.

Read the full summary

This was a writ de homine replegiando, brought in the name oi an illegitimate infant against his mother. Paul Wright, the putative father of the plaintiff, appeared bn his behalf to prosecute the suit, under the provision of the sixth section of the statute of Feb. 19, 1789, establishing the right to and the form of this writ, and the process was understood to have been commenced at his instance and expense. It appeared, by a statement of facts agreed in the case, that the plaintiff was born Jan. 10, 1802; that on the 28th of June, 1803, the said Paul and Deborah intermarried, and cohabited…

1Opinion of the CourtSewall, J.

The rights of the putative father are not brought into question by this process. The case, as it stands on the record, gives occasion to the single inquiry only, whether this infant shall *107oe in the care and custody of his mother, or set loose in the world without restraint or protection. On such a question I cannot hesitate in my opinion that the plaintiff should become nonsuit.

Sedgwick, J.

So.far as respects these parties, the question is, singly, whether a mother has a right to the custody of her natural child. I have no conception that an infant, in the arms of its mother, can be considered…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Inhabitants of Somerset v. Inhabitants of DightonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Haaland v. BrackeenSupreme Court of the United States · 2023
  2. In Re the Department of Public Welfare to Dispense With Consent to AdoptionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981
  3. Purinton v. JamrockMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
  4. Inhabitants of Somerset v. Inhabitants of DightonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
  5. Haaland v. BrackeenSupreme Court of the United States · 2023

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API