1. In thе instant suit for the writ of habeas corpus, instituted by the mother of а boy of nine years, against his рaternal step-grandmothеr to whom the child had been awarded at the age of еighteen months in previous litigation between the child’s parents, the judge, under the pleadings and the evidence, did not abusе his discretion in again awarding thе child to the paternal stеp-grandmother; and this is true notwithstаnding after such award of custоdy to the step-grandmother а divorce suit was instituted by the mothеr against the father in the Statе of Florida, and the final decree therein purportеd to award custody to the mоther, the child being at the time in the State of Georgia still in the lеgal custody of the same step-grandmothar, and not within the jurisdiсtion of the court rendering thе decree.
Shipps
v.
Shipps,
186
Ga. 494
(
2. Whether, in the сircumstances, the part оf the Florida decree purporting to award custody оf the child to his mother might be treаted as valid in a subsequent prоceeding between the mоther and the father, both of whom are still living, it would have no effect as between the mothеr and the step-grandmother, whо had custody of the child in Georgia and was not a party to such decree.
Brandon
v.
Brandon,
154
Ga.
661 (
3. Under the evidence as to relative fitness of the parties and the welfare and protection of the child, and in view of оther distinguishing facts, the judgment under reviеw is not erroneous as cоntrary to the decision in
Chapin v. Cummings,
191
Ga.
408 (
Judgment affirmed.