Overview
Case summary
This case involves a custody dispute between Mrs. Slack, the mother of two young children, and Mrs. Perrine, their testamentary guardian appointed under their deceased father's will. Mrs. Slack filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to obtain custody, but the writ was discharged. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, directing the trial court to sustain the demurrer to the return. Mrs. Perrine obtained a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court with a supersedeas bond. Pending this writ, the Court of Appeals ordered the children placed in the mother's custody. The Supreme Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeals' judgment because the custody matter cannot be reduced to a pecuniary value, citing Barry v. Mercein and Chapman v. United States. The writ of error was dismissed, and the Court declined to address whether the Court of Appeals' custody order was improvident.
Abstract
A mother filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the testamentary guardian appointed under the deceased father's will for custody of two young children, leading to reversal by the Court of Appeals and temporary placement with the mother pending further review. The guardian sought Supreme Court review via writ of error with supersedeas bond, but the Court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction, as the custody matter could not be reduced to a pecuniary value. The Court declined to address the merits of the custody order.
Opinion of the court
opinionMr. Chief Justice Fullerjoined by All justices
- Jurisdiction lacking due to non-pecuniary nature of custody dispute
- Follows Barry v. Mercein and Chapman v. United States
- Declines to consider propriety of Court of Appeals' action
Jurisdiction
challenged- Controversy involves custody of two children
- Matter in dispute incapable of being reduced to pecuniary standard of value
Procedural posture
- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to entertain writ of error
Subsequent history
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
de novo
Matter in dispute is incapable of being reduced to pecuniary standard of value, and court lacks jurisdiction under such circumstances
Issue preserved for review
Not addressed
Court declines to consider due to lack of jurisdiction
Issue not preserved
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Court of Appeals ordering custody change after writ of error granted — procedural · not addressedNot analyzed due to lack of jurisdiction · not applicable
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to entertain writ of error — de novo Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo
Timeline
Procedural path
Case submitted to Supreme Court
Outcome: Case under consideration
Oral arguments or briefing completed
Father of two children dies, leaving will appointing Mrs. Perrine as testamentary guardian
Outcome: Mrs. Perrine gains custody under will
Establishes basis for testamentary guardianship claim
Mrs. Slack files petition for writ of habeas corpus in Supreme Court of District of Columbia to obtain custody of children
Outcome: Writ issued
Initiates legal custody battle
Supreme Court of District of Columbia overrules demurrer to return and discharges writ of habeas corpus
Outcome: Custody remains with testamentary guardians
Trial court favors testamentary guardians over mother
Mrs. Slack appeals to Court of Appeals of District of Columbia
Outcome: Court of Appeals reverses and remands with directions to sustain demurrer
Appellate court reverses trial court, favoring mother
Writ of error granted by Supreme Court with supersedeas upon filing of $10,000 bond
Outcome: Writ of error allowed
Supreme Court agrees to review case
Court of Appeals orders judge of Supreme Court of District to place children in mother's custody pending writ of error, with Chief Justice dissenting
Outcome: Children transferred to mother's custody
Custody changed despite pending Supreme Court review
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
9 facts- Mrs. Perrine is sister of deceased father of two children
- Mrs. Perrine had custody under father's will as testamentary guardian
- Mrs. Slack is mother of children
- Mrs. Slack filed habeas corpus petition to obtain custody
- Supreme Court of District of Columbia discharged writ, favoring testamentary guardians
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to sustain demurrer to return
- Writ of error granted with supersedeas bond filed
- Court of Appeals ordered children placed in mother's custody pending writ of error
- Children taken from aunt and placed with mother
Disputed questions
- Right to custody of children between mother and testamentary guardian
Procedural history
8 steps- Habeas corpus petition filed by mother in Supreme Court of District of Columbia
- Writ issued and return demurred
- Demurrer overruled and writ discharged
- Mother appealed to Court of Appeals
- Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
- Writ of error granted by Supreme Court with supersedeas
- Court of Appeals ordered custody change pending writ of error
- Application to Supreme Court for supersedeas to annul custody order
Evidence in the record
- Father's will appointing Mrs. Perrine as testamentary guardian
- Father's will
- Habeas corpus petition
- Court orders
Objects of relevance
Policy considerations
- Jurisdictional limits on federal courts in family law matters
- Importance of finality in custody decisions
Authorities
Cited authorities (2)
Related cases (2)
Standards & doctrines
- Jurisdictional doctrine based on pecuniary value
- Testamentary guardianship law
Legal principles applied
- Matters incapable of pecuniary valuation are outside Supreme Court's jurisdiction on writ of error
- Finality of appellate court judgments in custody cases
Notable quotes
“The controversy is between the mother and the testamentary guardian of the infant children, each claiming the right to their custody and care, and the matter in dispute is of such a nature as to be incapable of being reduced to any pecuniary standard of value.”Mr. Chief Justice Fuller — Explaining why Supreme Court lacks jurisdictionCore holding on jurisdictional bar for non-pecuniary disputes