
    [No. 19526.
    Department Two.
    May 12, 1926.]
    
      In the Matter of the Application of J. V. Allen for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Joyce Allen, a minor, Appellant, v. S. M. Lathrum et al., Respondents.
    
    
       Parent and’ Child (3)—Custody op Child—Welfare and Best Interests op Child. The primary right of a parent to the cus- . . tody of his child must yield to a consideration of the welfare of the child.
    Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for "Whitman county, Mills, J., entered April 27,1925, upon findings in favor of defendant, in habeas corpus proceedings.
    Affirmed.
    
      Turner, Nuzum & Turner, for appellant.
    
      Pickrell & Stotler, for respondents.
   Mitchell, J.

This is a proceeding in habeas corpus, commenced in the superior court of Whitman eounty by J. Y, Allen to recover the custody of his daughter, Joyce Allen, a minor. The child’s mother died when it was two years of age, at which time it was given by the father into the care of the respondents. Mrs. Lath-rum is an aunt of the child, and she with her husband have had the care of it for something more than eight years. Shortly after the marriage of the petitioner to his present wife, this action was commenced. Upon what appears to have been a careful consideration of the evidence presented at a rather complete and exhaustive hearing, the trial judge, upon findings full and sufficient for that purpose, entered judgment refusing to change the care, custody and control of the child until the further order of the court. The petitioner, J. V. Allen, has appealed.

This is a typical case wherein, notwithstanding the original and primary right of a parent, the great and leading object to be obtained is the welfare of the child. With this rule in mind, the case must be resolved upon the facts peculiar to it. A fair view of the facts could not be presented without largely detailing the testimony of a great number of witnesses, which in oúr opinion would serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that, upon consideration of the oral arguments of respective counsel, their elaborate briefs and an examination of the evidence, we are satisfied that the judgment of the trial court was correct.

Affirmed.

Tolman, C. J., Mackintosh, Main, and Parker, JJ., concur. 
      
       Reported in 245 Pac. 919.
     