Beattie v. Traynor.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 297.,297. |
| Citation | 42 A.2d 435 |
| Parties | BEATTIE v. TRAYNOR. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Caledonia County Court; Stephen S. Cushing, Judge.
Action by Rubie P. Beattie against W. Craig Traynor, administrator of the estate of Clarence A. Smith, deceased, for the amount due under a contract to pay for the support and education of an illegitimate child of plaintiff and decedent. Judgment overruling plaintiff's demurrer to certain pleas of defendant and dismissing plaintiff's appeal from commissioners' disallowance of her claim, and plaintiff brings exceptions.
Reversed and remanded.
Clifton L. Drew, of Lyndonville, and Lee E. Emerson, of Barton, for plaintiff.
Witters & Longmoore, of St. Johnsbury, for defendant.
Before MOULTON, C. J., and SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, STURTEVANT, and JEFFORDS, JJ.
This is an appeal from the disallowance by commissioners of a claim against the estate of the late Clarence A. Smith. The subject matter of the appeal is an alleged contract for the support and care of an illegitimate child. It appears from the allegations in the plaintiff's declaration that she, a single woman, is the mother of the boy and that the decedent was his father. It is alleged that some months after the birth of the child the plaintiff advised Smith that unless he made provision for its support she would institute bastardy proceedings against him for the future support of the child. It is also alleged that Smith, in order to induce the plaintiff to forego instituting such proceedings and to induce her to keep the child at a place readily available to him, promised and agreed that if the plaintiff would forego the bringing of the suit and would go and live with and child at the home of a friend of Smith's and would stay there and allow Smith to see the child, he (Smith) would pay the plaintiff a certain sum each year for the care and support of the child and a further additional yearly sum for the use and benefit of the child in its training and education; these payments to continue during the minority of the child or for so long as either the child or Smith should live. It is then alleged that the plaintiff relying on these promises of payments, and in consideration thereof, did forego the bastardy suit and did fulfill the other conditions imposed by Smith, but that Smith has never paid anything under his agreement so that a certain amount is due the plaintiff.
An answer was filed in the county court in which various pleas were set forth. The plaintiff joined issue on some of the pleas and demurred to others. A hearing was had on the case made by the pleadings. The court overruled the demurrer, adjudged the pleas demurred to sufficient and dismissed the appeal. The case is here on the plaintiff's exceptions to these rulings.
The third and fifth pleas which were demurred to are set forth in substance in the defendant's brief as follows:
P.L. sec. 3174, as far as here material, reads as follows: ‘When a single woman is delivered of a bastard child, or declares herself to be with child, which, if born alive, will be a bastard, and charges a person in writing, under oath, before a justice or municipal judge of the county in which she resides, with having begotten such child, such magistrate shall * * *.’
The answers to the questions here presented depend largely, if not entirely, on the construction to be given to the above section. The defendant claims that under it an action could not have been maintained against the decedent during his lifetime as he was a married man. The plaintiff contends that under this statute a bastardy action can be had against a married man as well as against one who is not married.
No cases have been cited, nor have we found any, directly construing this statute, or similar statutes in other states, on this point. It is clear to us, however, that the Legislature intended to make married as well as single men liable for the support of their illegitimate children. If the intent were otherwise it is reasonable to expect that it would have been manifested in clear and unmistakable language. There is no reason to believe it was intended that married men might beget illegitimate children with immunity from civil prosecution for their support.
The object of a proceeding under this statute is to procure an order of filiation on the putative father, and thus compel him to aid the mother in the support of the child. Sweet v. Sherman, 21 Vt. 23, 30; Gaffery v. Austin, 8 Vt. 70, 72. Its purpose is to secure the support and education of the child and to protect society by preventing such child from becoming a public charge. 7 Am.Jur., p. 680, § 80. The mere statements of the object and purpose of this statute should afford sufficient reasons for holding that the Legislature intended that all putative fathers should be subject to its provisions. That the bar of this state have for many years so interpreted the statute is well known to all of the members of this Court. This interpretation is evidenced in Smith v. Pinney, 32 Vt. 282, decided in 1859, and in Lohsen v. Lawson, 106 Vt. 481, 174 A. 861, 95 A.L.R. 309, decided in 1934. In those cases the defendants were married men but the point here under discussion was not touched upon in either of the cases.
It should also be noted that in states which had statutes providing that ‘any woman’ might bring a bastardy action, the quoted words have been construed to include a married woman. See Annotation, 14 A.L.R. at page 974.
[3] [4] A prosecution under the statute, although in form criminal, is in fact a civil remedy. Gaffery v. Austin, supra; Coomes v. Knapp, 11 Vt. 543, 546. It follows that a complainant has the right to compromise or settle the suit after it has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Howard
...born out of wedlock. To this end, a complaint in bastardy is the proper subject for compromise and settlement. Beattie v. Traynor, 114 Vt. 238, 240, 42 A.2d 435, 159 A.L.R. 1399. The settlement of a doubtful claim is sufficient consideration for a promise to forbear legal action. It is of n......
-
State ex rel. Karr v. Shorey
...the institution of filiation proceedings before a settlement can be made and the proceedings compromised. Beattie v. Traynor, 114 Vt. 238, 42 A.2d 435, 159 A.L.R. 1399 (1945). Accord: Dannells v. U. S. National Bank, 172 Or. 213, 138 P.2d 220 (1943).5 For a recent analysis of our filiation ......
-
Schumm v. Berg
...valid consideration for Beery's promise to provide the child with $134,000. Appellant cites numerous authorities, Beattie v. Traynor, 114 Vt. 238, 42 A.2d 435, 159 L.R.A.1399; Redmon v. Roberts, 198 N.C. 161, 150 S.E. 881; Conley v. Cable, 198 N.C. 298, 151 S.E. 645; Thayer v. Thayer, 189 N......
-
Beattie v. Traynor.
...use and benefit of the child. The case has been here once before upon the pleadings, and reference is had to the opinion reported in 114 Vt. 238, 42 A.2d 435. There was a trial upon the merits resulting in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the case is again here. Plaintiff's evi......