¶1Weg ive no opinion on the general question of the right of the putative father to the custody of his child. The case does not require it. It is the grandfather who has taken possession of this child. /Now there are two *257reasons why he should not be permitted to retain the possession. First, the tender age of the child, (a little more than two years) ; and, second, the manner in which the possession was acquired. Force was made use of, accompanied with some degree of artifice. This conduct is not to be encouraged. If the grandfather thinks himself entitled to the keeping of this child, let him have recourse to the law of the cduntry ; he must not be the judge in his own cause. Were this permitted, we should have a scene of endless confusion. It is, therefore, the order of the Court,’.that the infant, John Fee, the third, be restored to the custody of his mother, Charlotte Neal.
6 Serg. & Rawle 255
Commonwealth v. Fee
Decided October 23, 1820
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1820-10-23
A HABEAS CORPUS having issued at the instance of Charlotte Neal, commanding John Fee, sen., to produce the body of John Fee the third, together with the cause of his detention, he returned, that he detained him by virtue of an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon county, a copy of the record of which was annexed to the return. * ' Toa habeas corpus issued by the Court of Common Pleas against the present defendant, he returned., that he was the grandfather of John…
Decided 1820-10-23