Blackburn v. Crawfords

Decision Date01 December 1865
Citation3 Wall. 175,70 U.S. 175,18 L.Ed. 186
PartiesBLACKBURN v. CRAWFORDS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

DR. CRAWFORD, of Prince George's County, Maryland, died intestate, in December, 1859, the proprietor of large landed estates there; Greenwood Park, Waring's Grove, Federal Hill, Westphalia, Ranleigh, &c. He left no wife, nor child, nor brother nor sister surviving him. Claimants to such estates, however, were not long wanting. On the one hand were relatives of the name of Blackburn, confessedly his cousins-german; on the other, persons bearing his own respectable Scottish name of Crawford: George Thomas Crawford, Mary Elizabeth Crawford, Sarah Jane Crawford, and Anna Victoria Crawford, the children of a brother, Mr. Thomas B. Crawford, who had died before him. The title of these children—as nephews and nieces, and nearer of course than cousins—was clear, but for a single difficulty; the fact that their legitimacy was called in question. It was asserted that their mother had been the mistress not the wife of their father. The intercourse of the parties had, confessedly, in its origin been irregular; but the allegation was that a marriage had subsequently taken place.

The family name of the mother was Elizabeth Taylor. In May, 1860, Mr. Crawford being then dead, she gave under oath in a judicial proceeding her own account of her relations to him. She testified that thirty years before, she herself being then twenty-two years old, she became acquainted with Mr. Crawford; she also knew Dr. Crawford, and became acquainted with him before she knew his brother; she became acquainted with Mr. Crawford while she lived with her mother, on a place rented from Mrs. Magruder. Her intimacy commenced with Mr. Crawford at that place. She and her mother afterwards removed to Monterey (a seat some distance from the city of Washington), owned by Mr. Crawford; where her mother died; she herself and her brother, however, continuing to live there. Her eldest child was born there. The house at Monterey was furnished by Mr. Crawford, and he provided and paid all the servants. Her intercourse with him was not commenced and assented to by her under a promise of marriage. Soon after its commencement he often said he would like to marry her, but owing to his family he could not marry her then. When the child Sarah was about eight months old she went to Washington City to have it christened, and also to visit her sister, Mrs. Evans, who was the wife of the sexton of St. Patrick's Church, in that city; the child was christened in the church on Sunday, after eleven-o'clock service. As she went out the Rev. Mr. Fiziac, who had performed the ceremony, and was one of the officiating priests there, followed her and had a long conversation with her about the mode of her life. He told her that the salvation of her soul was of more importance to her than all things else, and that she could not be saved if she continued living in sin with Mr. Crawford. The conversation was a long one, and at his instance she made up her mind, if Mr. Crawford would not marry her, to leave him; Mr. Crawford had sent the carriage up for her to come home; she sent it back on that Sunday evening, with a request that Mr. Crawford would come up the next day. He accordingly came up, and she had a long interview with him; she related to him what Mr. Fiziac had told her, and that the salvation of her soul was of more importance to her than all things else in this world; that she must separate from him if he would not marry her. He replied that he did not know about it, but that he could not marry her unless the marriage was kept secret from his mother and from his brother, Dr. Crawford. She assented that the marriage should be kept secret, and he then consented to marry her; she agreed that the marriage should take place the next day. On the next day, Tuesday, they went to St. Patrick's Church, and were there married by the Rev. Mr. Fiziac; her sister, Mrs. Evans, and her brother, Samuel Taylor, being present. Both of them were now dead. Mr. Crawford returned home that evening. She remained with her sister until the following Sunday, and then returned home to Monterey in Mr. Crawford's carriage. Mr. Crawford often, after the marriage, objected to his brother, Dr. Crawford, knowing anything about it, for, he said, if he did, that neither he nor his children would ever get a cent of Dr. Crawford's property. Her children, George and Victoria, were born after the marriage; George was born some ten or twelve months after it. From the time of the marriage she and Mr. Crawford lived together as man and wife—about four years and a half before Mr. Crawford's death. He took her and the children to live with him at Greenwood, the place where the Crawford family had been living; she took charge of the house at Greenwood, and sat at the head of the table; she made purchases for the family, and at the request of Mr. Crawford kept his money. She always kept the marriage secret, and never disclosed it until after the death of Dr. Crawford; she then disclosed it to Mr. Hill, who called upon her and asked her about it; he told her he had heard it rumored, and wanted to know the facts from her; she then, for the first time, told all about it to him. Mr. Crawford was always very kind to her; he sent the children to school, first to Wilson's, and afterwards sent the girls to Washington; the school bills were paid by him through her; he gave her the money to pay them; she also frequently purchased goods for the family in Washington and elsewhere; when she went to Washington she went in Mr. Crawford's carriage, and he occasionally went with her. When she first went to Greenwood, Dr. Crawford came there more frequently than afterwards; she always avoided him when he came, because she knew his dislike to her and the children. Dr. Crawford ceased visiting Greenwood for some time before the death of his brother, and was not there when he died. She was with Mr. Crawford at the time of his last attack; he was first attacked on the front porch at Greenwood; while in the act of stooping to wash he fell; she was close by, in the house, and was the first one to get to him; this was about six o'clock in the morning; he was carried into the house and placed upon a bed, and a physician immediately sent for. He rallied partially about one o'clock, and called for 'Boss' (the nickname by which he called 'our child,' George); the child was handed to him, but he soon relapsed, and did not again revive that she saw before his death.

This was a narrative sufficiently touching, and quite circumstantial, no doubt. But was it true? Was the case one of a marriage solemnized in form, and kept a secret for five-and-twenty years; a romance, perhaps—discovered only in the end, by relatives not enriched, to be a reality. Or was it one where the relations between the parties were meretricious merely?- This was, in fact, the great question in controversy in the case; and the question to which the testimony was principally if not altogether directed.

There were facts that inferred a belief that it was the former. There were facts that induced a conclusion that it was the latter. Among those of the second class were the following:

As soon as it was discovered that Dr. Crawford had died intestate, the question arose, of course, 'to whom shall administration of his estate be granted?' Mr. Blackburn claimed it on the one hand. Mr. George Thomas Crawford—the oldest of Mr. Crawford's children and his only son—upon the other. The Orphans' Court of Prince George's County, to which a decision of the question belonged, referred it to a jury to decide. The matter was put before them in the form of specific questions, one of them being, 'whether, either before or after the birth of the said George Thomas Crawford, Mr. Crawford was ever lawfully married to Miss Elizabeth Taylor or not?' On the evidence, as then put before them, that jury found that he was not. Mr. Crawford's other children, the three daughters, were, however, no parties to this proceeding. The administration was finally granted to Blackburn.

So, too, a solemn act of Mr. Crawford himself, and his directions when performing it, tended to the conclusion of no marriage. In June, 1844, being desirous to make his will, he called on his friend and general professional adviser, Mr. Bowie, of Baltimore, to prepare a draft of it for him. On that occasion, as it appeared at a later day, and from Mr. Bowie's own narrative, he had a conversation with that gentleman as to the best mode of securing his property to his children; asking Mr. Bowie's advice in the matter. In the course of this conversation Mr. Crawford produced certain drafts of promissory notes, which he had signed, for the payment of large sums of money to his children, and stated that he had been advised to make the notes as provisions for them, by some one or other of his friends. He asked Mr. Bowie what he thought of it? Mr. Bowie, who believed that Elizabeth Taylor was no more than the mistress of Mr. Crawford, and that his children were illegitimate, gave his advice to Mr. Crawford on that hypothesis. He objected to promissory notes, suggesting that they might lead to difficulties between the children and Mr. Crawford's relations, and explained to Mr. Crawford that there were three modes by which he might safely provide for the children, to wit: By a deed of his property, reserving a life estate to himself; or by his last will; or by marrying Elizabeth Taylor, and legitimating the children; Mr. Bowie strongly expressing his preference for the last-named expedient. Mr. Crawford, however, at once rejected the proposition that he should marry Elizabeth Taylor, and with great warmth declared that he would never do so. Upon this, Mr. Bowie advised him to make a will, and so to provide for the children. In accordance with this advice, Mr. Crawford directed Mr. Bowie to prepare the draft of a will, which he (Mr. Bowie) accordingly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
121 cases
  • U.S. v. Stewart
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 7, 1999
    ...It has long been the law that a client may waive protection of the privilege, either expressly or impliedly. Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 175, 194, 18 L.Ed. 186 (1865). One of the circumstances which may support a conclusion of a waiver is an attack by the client upon his attor......
  • Auld v. Cathro
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 24, 1910
    ...Rep. 676, 110 N.W. 374, 10 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 622; Winters v. Winters, 102 Iowa 53, 63 Am. St. Rep. 428, 71 N.W. 184; Blackburn v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 175, 18 L. ed. 186; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160, 17 Am. St. Rep. 555, S.W. 510; Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich. 209, 3 N.W. 882; Scripps v. Foster......
  • Clapper v. Lakin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1938
    ... ... Burkhart v. Ferguson, 174 N.W. 934, 8 ... A. L. R. 426; Whipple v. McKew, 60 S.W.2d 1006; ... Williams v. Ketchum, 13 S.W.2d 605; Blackburn v ... Crawford's Lessee, 18 L.Ed. 186, 194, 70 U.S. 196, 3 ... Wall. 186; State v. Shoemaker, 17 N.W. 589. The ... error in this respect was ... ...
  • Rankin v. Schofield
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1905
    ...McDonald administrator would estop him only, and not the collateral kindred of Gibson, who were not parties to the proceeding. 3 Wall. 175; Id. 190; 4 Strobh (S. C.), 352. effect would be to exclude him and let his co-claimants in for the entire estate if they maintained their claims. 152 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Dead men's lawyers tell no tales: the attorney-client privilege survives death.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 89 No. 3, March 1999
    • March 22, 1999
    ...that the client impliedly waives the right in order to fulfill his or her testamentary intent. Id. (26) See Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U.S. 175, 194 (1865) ("A different result would involve a perversion of the rule, inconsistent with its object, and in direct conflict with the reasons upon......
  • § 38.12 WAIVER
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (CAP) Title Chapter 38 Attorney-client Privilege
    • Invalid date
    ...of an efficient system of records management before litigation may also be relevant."139--------Notes:[123] Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U.S. 175, 194, 18 L. Ed. 186, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 698 (1865).[124] See In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[W]hen the client waives the privilege......
  • § 38.12 Waiver
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Evidence (2018) Title Chapter 38 Attorney-Client Privilege
    • Invalid date
    ...litigation may also be relevant."140 --------Notes:[123] See supra § 38.03 (discussing who is the holder).[124] Blackburn v. Crawfords, 70 U.S. 175, 194 (1865).[125] See In re von Bulow, 828 F.2d 94, 101 (2d Cir. 1987) ("[W]hen the client waives the privilege by testifying about what transp......

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