Cunningham v. Thomas

Decided November 15, 1865

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1865-11-15

<p>Habeas Corpus — Practice.—A demurrer is not the proper method of testing the sufficiency of a return to a writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>Abstract. — The abstract required by the rules of this court is not a mere index, but an intelligible abridgment of that part of the record which is necessary to be known in order to pass upon the questions presented.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1865-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1924

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Frazer, C. J.

¶1This was a writ of habeas corpus obtained by the mother of a child of tender years, alleging that it was illegally restrained of its liberty.

¶2A demurrer is not the proper method of testing the sufficiency of a return to such a writ. 2 G. & H., § 723, p. §18.

J. F. Gardner, for appellant. J, 8. Reid and J. Yaryan, for appellee.

¶3The evidence supports the judgment below. No useful purpose would be attained by setting it out in this opinion.

¶4The cause is so presented that we would be at liberty to deem the errors waived. Instead of an abstract we are furnished with an index to the transcript. An intelligible abridgment .of that part of the record which is necessary to be known, in order to pass upon the questions presented, is required.

¶5The judgment is affirmed, with costs.