Bullock v. Knox

• Decision Date: 21 June 1892
• Citation: 11 So. 339,96 Ala. 195
• Parties: BULLOCK ET AL. v. KNOX.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

11 So. 339

96 Ala. 195

BULLOCK ET AL. v. KNOX.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 21, 1892

Appeal from chancery court, Lowndes county; JOHN A. FOSTER, Judge.

Bill by W. W. Knox against W. P. Bullock and others. Judgment for complainant, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

The bill sought to have one Ben Knox adjudged to be an illegitimate child of complainant's father, Wilson Knox and to have his interest in the estate of Wilson Knox partitioned between the complainant and the defendant Fannie Allums, (nee Knox,) and to have the appellant Bullock account for rents which had come into his possession as guardian of the defendant Ben Knox, since 1882, and to have said rents paid to William W. Knox and Fannie Allums. Defendants Ben Knox and W. P. Bullock separately demurred to the bill of complainant. The defendant Bullock demurred to the bill for multifariousness, and on the ground that the complainant and the defendant Bullock have no interest in common in the lands, and because Bullock should not have been a party to the bill. The defendant Ben Knox demurred to the bill for multifariousness, and on the ground that the complainant had an adequate remedy at law; that the complainant had no right to repudiate the filiation of the defendant Knox; and that, as to defendant Knox, there was a misjoinder; and that the complainant shows no interest in the land that would enable him to maintain the bill.

J C. Richardson, for appellants.

Clements & Bremer, for appellee.

WALKER J.

The bill in this case prays for a partition among the heirs of Wilson Knox, deceased, of certain land owned by him at the time of his death. It is alleged that the complainant is a son, and that the defendant Fanny Allums, who is the wife of J. E. Allums, is a daughter, of Wilson Knox and his wife, Amanda, who afterwards married one Stewart. The complainant claims that no other person is entitled to an interest in the land as an heir of Wilson Knox. The bill shows, however, that a one-third interest in the land is claimed for one Ben Knox, a minor, on the supposition that he also is a son of the decedent, and that the guardian of Ben Knox has been in possession of the land in common with the real heirs, and has been receiving one third of the rents. In reference to this claim in behalf of Ben Knox the bill charges "that said Ben Knox is a son of said Amanda Knox, alias Stewart, by an adulterous intimacy with a mulatto negro named Martin Knox, or some other mulatto negro; and orator denies that said Ben Knox is the son of said Wilson, and denies that said Ben is entitled to any share or portion or interest in said lands in any manner whatsoever, as orator further avers and charges that said Wilson and said Amanda were white people, and of the white race, and said Ben Knox is a mulatto negro." It is plain that the claim of Ben Knox as an heir is assailed, not on the ground that he was not born in lawful wedlock, but on the ground that he was not in fact, and could not have been, the son of Wilson Knox, his mother's lawful husband. Ben Knox and his guardian are made parties defendant. The bill prays that the guardian be required to account to the complainant and Mrs. Allums for the amount of rents of the land in question received by him for his ward; and that a decree be made that said Ben Knox has no right, title, claim, or interest in said described lands, and is not entitled to any portion or share in the same. The appeal is from the decree overruling the demurrers of Ben Knox and of his guardian, Bullock, to the bill as amended.

It may be inferred from the averments of the bill, though it is not clearly shown, that Ben Knox was born while his mother and Wilson Knox were wife and husband, and that, therefore, the presumption is that he is the legitimate son of Wilson Knox. The questions to be considered are: On the averments of the bill as amended, is Ben Knox to be treated as a son and heir of Wilson Knox, deceased? and do the existence of the claim in behalf of Ben Knox and the receipt of rents by his guardian render them proper parties to the bill for partition, for the purpose of decreeing that Ben Knox is not entitled to any interest in the land sought to be partitioned, and to require his guardian to account to the true heirs for the share of the rents received by him? The ancient common-law authorities declared to the issue of every married woman to be legitimate, except in the two special cases of the impotency of the husband and his absence from the realm. In the present case the complainant specifies the fact which is relied on to support the conclusion that Ben Knox is not the son of Wilson Knox, deceased. That fact is that Ben Knox is a mulatto, while his mother was a white woman, and his mother's husband was a white man, and of the white race. The inference is excluded that the charge of illegitimacy rests either upon the impotency of the husband or upon the impossibility of his access to the wife during the period when she became pregnant. If the rule above stated prevails, the particular case alleged in the bill is not one in which the law permits the presumption of legitimacy to be disputed, and Ben Knox must be treated as the son of his mother's husband. But that rule has long since been exploded. It operated in many cases to make a man, in law the father of children who were obviously not his in fact. The rule was first relaxed by permitting...