Edwards v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 24 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 17827,17827 |
| Citation | 121 S.E.2d 432,239 S.C. 85 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Waites T. EDWARDS, Respondent, v. William M. EDWARDS, Robert W. Edwards, Joseph V. Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards Dempsey and Dorothy Edwards Cunningham, Appellants. |
Love, Thornton & Arnold, J. G. Leatherwood, Greenville, for appellant.
Thomas A. Wofford, Theodore A. Snyder, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action seeking to have himself declared the natural child of William S. Edwards and therefore an heir of James M. Edwards.
William S. Edwards married Mamie Taylor in August, 1915. At that time she was the mother of a four year old son born out of wedlock, named Waites and plaintiff here. Following the marriage, six children were born to William S. and Mamie Taylor Edwards. Those children, with the exception of Roger, who died many years ago, are the defendants in this case. Both William S. Edwards and Mamie Taylor Edwards were reared and lived all of their lives in the Taylors Community in the eastern part of Greenville County. William S. Edwards died testate in 1953 and Mamie Taylor Edwards died in 1945.
A brother of William S. Edwards, James M. Edwards, died intestate on April 9, 1958. He had been non compos mentis most or all of his life, had never married, and left as his heirs his nephews and nieces. His net personal estate amounted to $161,388.91. One-third of this was distributable per stirpes to those nephews and nieces who were children of William S. Edwards.
Distribution was made to the defendants, one-fifteenth each, on February 11, 1959. Subsequently, on March 24, 1959, plaintiff made demand on the defendants for a distributive share of one-eighteenth or one-sixth of the one-third distributed to the William S. Edwards children.
The defendants answered in due time, denying that their father was also the father of plaintiff.
Upon trial the Court reserved all issues of law and submitted to the jury the question: 'Was William S. Edwards the father of Waites T. Edwards?' The jurors commenced deliberation shortly before noon on June 24, 1960. At 3:00 P.M. they requested further instruction as to the burden of proof. At 6:30 P.M. they reported that they were unable to agree on a verdict, and the Court instructed them to deliberate further. At 12:45 A.M. on June 25, they again reported that they were unable to agree. After further instructions, they returned to the jury room for deliberation and at 1:05 A.M., on June 25, returned a verdict answering in the affirmative the question set out above.
Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or, in the alternative, for a new trial; and the Court, after hearing arguments thereon, issued its Order resolving all legal issues in favor of plaintiff and denying defendants' motions. The Court held that upon the jury finding that the plaintiff was the child of William S. Edwards he was entitled to inherit as an heir at law of James M. Edwards, deceased. Accordingly, judgment was ordered in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $1,797.71, together with interest at six per cent from February 11, 1959, against each of the defendants individually; and they now appeal, contending first that the Court erred in admitting into evidence the U. S. Official Census returns of 1920 which contained information relative to plaintiff.
Appearing thereon were the names of Will Edwards and Mamie Edwards as husband and wife and Waites Edwards, Roger Edwards, William Edwards, and Robert Edwards appearing as sons, together with sex, race, age and other information with respect to the plaintiff, Waites Edwards.
Title 13 U.S.C.A. § 9(a) prohibits the use of the census information for certain purposes and Section 8(a) of this Title provides:
'The Secretary may, upon a written request, and in his discretion, furnish to Governors of States and Territories, courts of record, and individuals, data for genealogical and other proper purposes, from the population, agriculture, and housing schedules prepared under the authority of subchapter II of chapter 5, upon the payment of the actual, or estimated cost of searching the records and $1 for supplying a certificate.'
And subsection (c) of Section 8 provides:
'In no case shall information furnished under the authority of this section be used to the detriment of the persons to whom such information relates.'
Plaintiff, having obtained this information concerning himself, introduced it into the record over defendants' objection. The exhibit appears to be complete from margin to margin as to plaintiff but was not complete as to the others with only the names heretofore listed being included as sons of the named Will Edwards. The question of the relationship of the defendants to each other and to the parents was undisputed and not before the Court, the only question being the parentage and relationship of the plaintiff. The use of the census is prohibited when the information obtained is detrimental of the persons to whom such information relates, and defendants contend that this report was detrimental to them in violation of the provisions of the Act in that it was used to their detriment and refer to it as being highly damaging and having considerable bearing on the verdict.
The census reports were compiled by enumerators, calling upon the homes in their respective areas and ascertaining by inquiry from specified persons certain information required for the census or survey, Title 13 U.S.C.A. § 25(c), Cumulative Annual Pocket Part. These enumerators were therefore required by law to perform these duties and were not merely acting under the direction of some superior officer with respect to the matters shown on the census report. The records, therefore, were not made merely for the purpose of ascertaining and recording facts appearing thereon but are made by officers under oath, whose declarations are proof upon the subject of pedigree, etc., Flora v. Anderson, C.C., 75 F. 217. See also Priddy et al. v. Boice, 201 Mo. 309, 99 S.W. 1055, 9 L.R.A.,N.S., 718.
Census records were held to be admissible in Doto v. United States, 1955, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 17, 223 F.2d 309; and in Harjo v. Johnston et al., 187 Okl. 561, 104 P.2d 985, where it was held that a guardian's failure to use the census records in a proceeding to determine the interest of a minor in certain real estate amounted to fraud when the guardian knew that the census report showed the relationship of the minor to be of full blood but consented to an allocation to the minor of a division of the property based upon half blood interest as his share of the estate.
We are constrained to the view that the framers of the Act did not use the word 'detriment' as applying to some loss that might follow from the information furnished. It may be assumed that the information furnished from the census files upon request of a private individual reflects the truth. The use of such information to the detriment of those to whom it relates does not mean detriment in the sense of a financial loss flowing from establishing the truth in a Court of law. If plaintiff is the son of William S. Edwards and a full brother of defendants, he is entitled to an equal share and they have not been deprived of anything that was lawfully theirs but only that which they had no lawful right to claim as theirs. In this they have suffered no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Moore
...to further deliberations]; Gamble v. Travelers Ins. Co., 251 S.C. 98, 160 S.E.2d 523, 527-528 (S.C.1968); Edwards v. Edwards, 239 S.C. 85, 121 S.E.2d 432, 436 (S.C.1961) [consent may be implied]. Further, even if counsel had objected on the basis of § 14-7-1330, this objection would have be......
-
Buff v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF TRANSP.
...or complaint ... on the part of the jury as to retiring for further deliberations." Id. at 406, 113 S.E. at 310. In Edwards v. Edwards, 239 S.C. 85, 121 S.E.2d 432 (1961), in returning the jury to the jury room to deliberate a third time, the trial judge I'm going to ask you in all seriousn......
-
Miranda v. Sullivan
...that an individual is not subject to a "detriment" if she is denied something to which she is not entitled. See Edwards v. Edwards, 239 S.C. 85, 121 S.E.2d 432, 435 (1961); State ex rel. James Lytell v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 153 So.2d 498, 500 (La.App.1963). The words used by the......
-
State ex rel. Lytell v. Louisiana State Bd. of Health through Rein
...Regis Paper Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 82 S.Ct. 289, 7 L.Ed.2d 240. A South Carolina Court passed on Sec. 8 (Edwards v. Edwards, 239 S.C. 85, 121 S.E.2d 432, in relation to the question of 'detriment.' There the court held that, as the Federal census showed Plaintiff was a natural ......