Wallace v. Godfrey

Decision Date01 June 1890
PartiesWALLACE v. GODFREY et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

D. C Standifer, J. T. Lowe, and W. S. Chapman, for complainant.

F. A Montgomery, Jr., St. John Waddell, Sullivan & Whitfield, and M. A. Montgomery, for respondents.

HILL J.

The questions now presented for decision arise upon the demurrer of Edward Godfrey, R. C. Kyle, James Tyson, and W. J. Kyle defendants in this cause, to complainant's bill. The bill, in substance, states that, in the year 1851, Sam Stone and Cynthia Ruffin, with the consent of their master, they both then being slaves, were, in the state of Tennessee lawfully married; that in the year 1852 the complainant, Candis Wallace, was, as the fruit of said marriage, born, being the legitimate child of said Sam Stone and Cynthia Ruffin, as far as the same could be under the laws of the state of Tennessee, where her parents then lived, and where she was born; that some months after her birth her mother died; that her father, said Sam Stone, ever afterwards, and up to his death, recognized and treated her as his lawful child, as much so as could be done under his condition as a slave, and under the laws of said state; that complainant and her father remained slaves until emancipated by the thirteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States, and continued to reside in said state as citizens thereof until some time in the year 1867 or 1868, when her father removed to the state of Mississippi, complainant remaining a citizen of Tennessee, where she still resides, and is the wife of . . . Wallace; that on the 26th day of May, 1866, and while complainant and her father were citizens of Tennessee, the legislature of said state passed an act in the following words: 'All free persons of color, who were living together as husband and wife in this state while in a state of slavery, are hereby declared to be man and wife, and their children legitimately entitled to an inheritance in any property heretofore acquired, or that may hereafter be acquired, by said parents, to as full an extent as the children of white citizens are now entitled, by the existing laws of this state,' (Laws 1865-66, c. 40, Sec. 5;) that, some time after her father removed to Mississippi, he married another woman, by whom he had two children, George and Martha; that some time during the year 1880 her father died intestate in Tunica county, in the state of Mississippi, possessed and the owner in fee of the W. 1/2 of section 15, in township 6, and range 11 W., now worth $7,500; that her father, the said Sam Stone, left surviving him, as his heirs at law, his three children, the complainant, and said George Stone, and said Martha Stone, the latter having been married to Henry Clay; that her brother, George Stone, and Martha Clay have both since departed this life; that George Stone left neither wife nor child; that Martha Clay left as her heir at law her husband, Henry Clay, and her two minor children, Ida Clay and Davis Clay; that complainant is informed that Edward Godfrey, Jim Tyson, R. C. Kyle, and W. J. Kyle, defendants, claim some title to said lands, or some part of them. The bill prays that the defendants answer the allegations in the bill; that commissioners be appointed to partition the said lands; and that complainant have, by a decree of this court, her interest in said land set off to her. The bill charges that the complainant is the heir at law of her father, Sam Stone; that as such she is entitled to one-third in value of the lands described in the bill, and prays that the same be set off to her as aforesaid, and that, if this cannot be done without impairing its value, the land be sold, and, after the payment of the costs and expenses, the one-third thereof be paid over to her. The demurrers aver, in substance, that the bill on its face shows that complainant was born of slave parents, who were never legally married; that she is therefore an illegitimate child, and incapable of inheriting any part of the land described in the bill; that she is barred by the statute of limitations; that the bill does not set out the interests of the demurrants in the land described in the bill.

The question thus raised, and which has been ably argued by the learned counsel on all sides, is of first impression in this court, and in some respects, in any other court to which I have been referred. The validity of the marriage between the complainant's parents, and the legitimacy of complainant as their child, must depend upon the statutes of the state of Tennessee, where the marriage took place, and where the parties resided when the act of May 26, 1866, was passed and became a law as construed by the supreme court of that state, and upon the statutes of this state on the subject of descent of real estate of persons dying intestate. The law of the states regulating the validity of marriage, and the legitimacy of children born of the marriage, is governed by the laws of the state where the marriage takes place and the children are born, and the law of descent by the statutes of the state in which the land is situated. This is the rule in all the states, when not against the public policy of the state.

I have been referred to but two decisions made by the supreme court of Tennessee in reference to the subject of marriage between slaves while they were such, and as to the effect of the act of 1866. The first is the case of McReynolds v. State, 5 Cold. 18. This was a case in which the defendant was indicted for the crime of bigamy. The defendant while a slave married a woman who was also a slave at the time. They lived together as husband and wife until after the emancipation act, when he abandoned his wife, and married another colored woman. For this marriage he was indicted. It was held by the court in that case that while a slave he was incapable of making a valid contract, and that the marriage was void, and that it was his privilege to treat it as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wadsworth v. Brigham
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 24 Abril 1928
    ...... parents were dead at the time of the passage of the act. Gregley v. Jackson, 38 Ark. 487; Wallace v. Godfrey (C. C.) 42 F. 812, and Jackson v. Lervey, 5. Cow. (N. Y.) 403. . . In. Jackson v. Lervey, 5 ......
  • Lee v. Lee
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Marzo 1901
    ...... Williams, 75 Tex. 653; Andrews v. Simmons, 68. Miss. 732; State v. Sapp. 10 S.C. 500; Pierce v. Fontenette, 25 La. Ann. 617; Wallace v. Kimball. (Fla.), 26 L. R. A. 746; 1 Cooley's Blackstone (3. Ed.), sec. 2, p. 454; 2 Kent's Com. (13 Ed.), p. 212;. Doe v. Vardill, 5 B. & C. ... finding for plaintiffs was correct. R. S. 1899, sec. 2920;. Woodward v. Blue (N. C.), 9 S.E. 492; Wallace v. Godfrey, 42 F. 812; Dyer v. Brannock, 66 Mo. 390 (overruling 2 Mo.App. 449); Johnson v. Johnson,. 30 Mo. 72; Buchanan v. Harvey, 35 Mo. 276;. Andrews v. ......
  • Kelley's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 24 Abril 1957
    ...construed to apply to children whose parents were dead at the time of the passage of the act: Gregley v. Jackson, 38 Ark. 487; Wallace v. Godfrey, C.C., 42 F. 812; Jackson v. Lervey, 5 Cow., N.Y., 'In Jackson v. Lervey, 5 Cow., N.Y., 397, 403, the court said: "The act declares, that all mar......
  • Robinson v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Mississippi
    • 18 Junio 1890

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT