Bleakley v. Barclay
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Douglas district court; Charles A. Smart, judge. STATEMENT. This appeal from a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus for the possession of a child involves the merits of the “incubator baby case.” A part of the controversy was before the court in Blealdey v. Smart, 74 Kan. 476, 87 Pac.-76. That was an action of mandamus to compel the trial judge to rule upon a motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Error from Douglas district court; Charles A. Smart, judge. STATEMENT. This appeal from a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus for the possession of a child involves the merits of the “incubator baby case.” A part of the controversy was before the court in Blealdey v. Smart, 74 Kan. 476, 87 Pac.-76. That was an action of mandamus to compel the trial judge to rule upon a motion for a new trial. The motion having been denied, the respondent brings the case here for review. Some of th'e history of the case is set forth in the recital of facts in the mandamus case, which, however, it…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Porter, J.:
Before considering the errors assigned some additional facts in the history of the case should be noted.
From the transcript of the proceedings in Illinois it appears that the petition there was filed on May 26, 1905. At that time the child, Edith, was fifteen months old. It also appears that the Barclays, who were temporarily residing in St. Louis during the exposition in 1904, where James G. Barclay was in charge of an exhibit, first saw the child at the baby-incubator concession. They learned that it had been placed in charge of the…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Haddock v. HaddockSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Burlen v. ShannonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Harding v. HardingSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Sheehy v. SheehySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1936
- Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City TownshipSupreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Jamison v. Gilbert Et Ux.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Chisholm v. HouseCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1947
- State Ex Rel. Baker v. UtechtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1946
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.