e said court was without jurisdiction; and even assuming that the Texas court had jurisdiction, such decree is not res judicata to appellees' action and not entitled to full faith and credit in Mississippi. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 92 L.Ed. 1898; American Casualty Co. v. Kincade, 219 Miss. 653, 69 So.2d 820; Baskin v. Montedonico, 115 F.2d 837; Boone v. Boone, 150 F.2d 153; Britt v. Allred, 199 Miss. 786, 25 So.2d 711; Burns v. Welch, 159 F.2d 29; Butler v. Judge, 116 F.2d 1013; Cantu v. Southern Pacific R. Co. (Tex.), 166 S.W.2d 963; Estin v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 92 L.Ed. 1561; Ex parte Birmingham (Tex.), 244 S.W.2d 977; Finlay v. Finlay, 240 N.Y. 429, 148 N.E. 624; Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 91 L.Ed. 1133; Hawkins v. Hawkins, 208 Miss. 686, 45 So.2d 271; Kincaid v. Kincaid, 213 Miss. 451, 43 So.2d 108; Langan v. Langan, 150 F.2d 979; Latham v. Latham (Miss.), 223 Miss. 263, 78 So.2d 147; May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L.Ed. 1221; Mills v. Howard (Tex.), 228 S.W.2d 906; Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502; Peacock v. Bradshaw (Tex.), 194 S.W.2d 551; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565; Sanders v. Allen, 100 F.2d 717; Saunders v. Alvido, 52 Tex. 356, 113 S.W. 992; Schrimpt v. Settegast, 36 Tex. 296; Smith v. Ansley (Tex.), 257 S.W.2d 156; Steel v. Steel, 152 Miss. 365, 118 So. 721; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 U.S. 457, 21 L.Ed. 897; Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 1 L.Ed. 1456; Wicks v. Cox, 146 Tex. 489, 208 S.W.2d 876; Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 89 L.Ed. 1577; Worden v. Worden, 148 Tex. 356, 224 S.W.2d 187; 25 Am. Jur., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 106 p. 222; 67 C.J.S., Parent and Child, Sec. 701 p. 803; Vol. 8, University of Chicago Law Review, p. 42. McGEHEE, C.J.

In the instant case Lorraine M. Cox did not file a habeas corpus proceeding, as did Mrs. Latham in the case of Latham, Gdn., etc. v. Latham, supra, invoking the full faith and credit that should be given under United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, to the decrees of the courts of New York or Pennsylvania, but she merely invoked the said proceedings in these other states under the said full faith and credit clause in support of her plea to the jurisdiction of the Chancery Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi. In other words, this case may be differentiated from the case of Latham, Gdn., etc. v. Latham, supra, in that regard. It was held in the case of Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502, that in all cases except where a divorce is granted or separate maintenance is decreed, the right to the custody of children must be determined by habeas corpus; and that no other remedy exists, citing Amis, Divorce and Separation in Miss., Section 225, quoted above, and Payne v. Payne, 213 Miss. 815, 58 So.2d 9, 377.

B. The appellee had the actual custody of said minor children of the parties in her home in Kemper County, Mississippi at the time of the filing of the original bill of complaint in this cause and at the time of the rendition of the original decree herein attempting to award the custody of said children to the appellee. Bobo v. Christian, 199 Miss. 433, 25 So.2d 325; Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502; Sec. 2815, Code of 1942; Bunkley and Morse's Amis, Divorce and Separation in Miss., Sec. 8.00 p. 210. C. The Trial Court was without authority to decree the payment of sums for the future support and maintenance of the minor children of the parties to this cause.

III. Appellant should be awarded the custody of the minor child of the parties. Boswell v. Pope, 213 Miss. 31, 56 So.2d 1; Cocke v. Hannum, 39 Miss. 423; Duncan v. Duncan, 119 Miss. 271, 80 So. 697; Johns v. Johns, 57 Miss. 530; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 222 Miss. 469, 76 So.2d 375; McShan v. McShan, 56 Miss. 413; Miles v. Miles, 111 Miss. 110, 71 So. 295; Mitchell v. Mitchell, 218 Miss. 37, 65 So.2d 265; Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502; O'Neal v. O'Neal, 95 Miss. 415, 48 So. 623; Payne v. Payne, 213 Miss. 815, 58 So.2d 9; Scott v. Scott, 219 Miss. 614, 69 So.2d 489; Thames v. Thames, 233 Miss. 24, 100 So.2d 868; Secs. 399, 2743, Code 1942. IV. Appellant should be awarded one-half of the real and personal property of the parties.

She was in their custody with her mother's consent after the father had abandoned her, and was not within the jurisdiction of the Hinds County Chancery Court. Hence that decree, in the divorce proceedings, to which appellants were not parties, was not binding on them. See Neal v. Neal, 238 Miss. 572, 119 So.2d 273 (1960); Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502 (1956); Steele v. Steele, 152 Miss. 365, 118 So. 721 (1928). For these reasons, the decree of the trial court will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a full hearing on the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence, and for a decision consistent with the principles enunciated by this opinion.

The decree of the District Court of Carter County, Oklahoma, was not entitled to full faith and credit in this state, so far as it attempted to grant custody of the child, under the facts established. Hutchins v. Moore, 231 Miss. 272, 97 So.2d 748; Kincaid v. Kincaid, 207 Miss. 692, 43 So.2d 108; Latham v. Latham, 223 Miss. 263, 78 So.2d 147; McAdams v. McFerron, 180 Miss. 644, 178 So. 333; Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502; Steele v. Steele, 152 Miss. 365, 118 So. 721. II.

Stanley v. McKenzie, 29 Ariz. 288, 240 P.2d 1033 (1925). Schneider v. Schneider, 155 Miss. 621, 125 So. 91 (1929); Montgomery v. Walker, 227 Miss. 552, 86 So.2d 502 (1956). Salomon v. Salomon, 101 App. Div. 580, 92 N.Y.S. 184 (1905); White v. White, 154 App. Div. 250, 138 N.Y.S. 1082 (1912).