Howry v. Calloway
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the chancery court of Lafayette county. 1. The record does not show such a return as is contemplated by the statute; that the return on a writ of habeas corpus should be signed ■ by the sheriff, see Code, p. 282, § 1405. 2. The second and third causes of demurrer bring before the court the whole question relating to the law of apprenticeship as it now exists in this state, as well as the validity of the proceedings in the chancery court of Lafayette county in…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the chancery court of Lafayette county. 1. The record does not show such a return as is contemplated by the statute; that the return on a writ of habeas corpus should be signed ■ by the sheriff, see Code, p. 282, § 1405. 2. The second and third causes of demurrer bring before the court the whole question relating to the law of apprenticeship as it now exists in this state, as well as the validity of the proceedings in the chancery court of Lafayette county in apprenticing the minor. We will examine both causes of demurrer together. The law of apprenticeship has its origin in the…
1Opinion of the Court
SlMRALL, J. :
The relator, James M. Howry, claims the custody and possession of the person of Patsy Payne, on the ground that she is a minor, withinT8 years of age, and was duly apprenticed to him by the chancery court of Lafayette county, and that the respondent detained her.
The facts elicited at the trial of the habeas corpus were, that said Patsy had been apprenticed to the relator, and before the expiration of her term of service had left his house and premises, and had married the respondent.
Did the relator acquire the legal right to the custody and control of Patsy, because of the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lake v. PerryMississippi Supreme Court · 1909
- Ackley v. TinkerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Moore v. AllenMississippi Supreme Court · 1894