Jones v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 07 February 1903
• Citation: 117 Ga. 58,43 S.E. 417
• Parties: JONES. v. PETERSON et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

43 S.E. 417

117 Ga. 58

JONES.

v.PETERSON et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 7, 1903.

BASTARDY—SETTLEMENT OF PROSECUTION— DURESS.

1. Where a woman has sued out a warrant against a man, charging him with being the father of her bastard child, they may settle the case by his paying her money or giving his promissory note. If such note be given, there is sufficient consideration, both moral and legal, to authorize a recovery thereon.

2. The mere fact that the note is given while the putative father is under arrest under the warrant is not such duress as will render it void.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Douglas; J. W. Quincey, Judge.

Action by Peterson, Lott & Paulk against A. J. Jones. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

O'Steen & Candler, for plaintiff in error.

F. W. Dart, for defendants in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. An action was brought by Peterson, Lott & Paulk against A. J. Jones on a promissory note signed by John Jones and A. H. Jones; the petition alleging that John Jones was dead. The defendant tiled an answer in which he alleged that he was surety on the note; that John Jones, his son, had been arrested on a charge of bastardy made by Mary Lott, the payee of the note; that the sole consideration of the note was that the charges would be withdrawn; and that the note was thus given under duress and to settle a criminal prosecution. This answer also alleged that the note was given while the principal was under arrest, and just prior to the time set for the trial of the charges against him. The answer further charged the plaintiffs with full notice and knowledge of the character of the consideration for which the note was given. The plaintiff demurred to these pleas, and the court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendant excepted.

1. There was no error in striking the pleas. The mother of a bastard child has a right, under the law, to settle with the father on such terms as may be agreed on. The issuance of the warrant for bastardy and the arrest thereunder did not, in a strict view of the matter, make a criminal case. The warrant was for the purpose of bringing the putative father before a magistrate for inquiry as to whether he was the father of the child. If the magistrate found that he was, then it was the duty of the magistrate to require the father to give bond to support the child until it arrived at the age of 14 years. Therefore the case was not a criminal one at this stage of the proceedings, in the sense that it could not be settled, and it could in no event become a criminal case until the putative father refused or failed to give the bond required by law. The Code makes penal the refusal or failure to give the bond. We are clear, therefore, that the parties had a right to settle by the father paying or agreeing to pay the mother a certain sum of money. That a note given under such circumstances is not without consideration has been settled in this state by Har-groves v. Freeman, 12 Ga. 342, and the cases following it, to wit, Davis v. Moody, 15 Ga. 175; Hays v. McFarlan, 32 Ga. 699, 79 Am. Dec. 317; Jackson v. Finney, 33 Ga. 512. These cases hold, in substance, that there is not only a moral, but a legal,...