Krupp v. Sackwitz
| Decision Date | 11 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 61-F-18 |
| Citation | 174 N.E.2d 877,30 Ill.App.2d 450 |
| Parties | Alberta KRUPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cecelia SACKWITZ and Bernard A. Sackwitz, co-administrators of the Estate of Albert F. Sackwitz, Deceased, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Baltz & Guymon, Belleville, for appellant.
Dreman & Sterling, Belleville, for appellees.
This proceeding originated in Probate Court and was heard de novo in the Circuit Court. The purpose was to have plaintiff declared to be an heir of Albert F. Sackwitz, deceased. The prayer was denied after a hearing by the court without a jury. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which transferred the case to this court.
The plaintiff was born out of wedlock, and her mother filed a suit in County Court in 1918 under the applicable statute then in force. A jury found that Albert F. Sackwitz was the father, and he was ordered to pay certain sums to the mother. He complied with that order, and there is some evidence that he made further voluntary contributions toward plaintiff's support and education.
There was also testimony of two witnesses as to statements made by Mr. Sackwitz some twenty five years ago, purporting to acknowledge plaintiff as his daughter. On this appeal the defense denies that the evidence is sufficient to establish such acknowledgement, but, regardless of that point, contends that plaintiff is not an heir under existing law in this state.
The theory advanced for plaintiff is that the law imposes undue hardship upon her and deprives her of her natural right to inherit. It is argued that the modern trend of thought is to be more liberal toward the illegitimate child, and that the courts should disregard precedent and declare a public policy on the subject, to the extent of conferring on illegitimates the status of heirs on the paternal side.
There is no doubt that the past century has seen considerable change in the public attitude toward the child born out of wedlock. At common law it could not inherit from anyone. As stated by Blackstone, Vol. 1, p. 459, such a child 'cannot be heir to anyone, neither can he have heirs but of his own body.'
The harshness of these rules has been tempered by statutes, which conferred reciprocal rights of inheritance upon mother and child, and required some monetary contribution from the father upon proof of his identity.
The present statute as to inheritance rights of illegitimate children is in Section 163 of Chap. 3, Ill.Rev.Stat. It may be noted that the general section '162' includes 'parents' as heirs, absent certain other kin, while this special section as to illegitimates substitutes the word 'mother' for 'parents.' The concluding sentence gives a limited status as to the father, as follows:
'An illegitimate child, whose parents have intermarried and whose father has acknowledged him or her as his child, shall be considered legitimate.'
It may be further observed that in 1957 the legislature adopted the Paternity Act (Chap. 106 3/4, Ill.Rev.Stat.) which requires the identified father to support the child until eighteen years of age. This statute eliminates the use of such words as 'bastard', and does not even classify children as illegitimate, nor use the word, except to disclaim any change in that status except as expressly provided in the act.
It is therefore, clear that the legislature has enacted laws for the express purpose of applying its regulatory powers to the child born out of wedlock. It is the province of the courts to interpret statutes, and to give effect to the intention it finds. It is not the province of the courts to amend substantive law either by denying its application to situations clearly included, or by extending it to situations clearly not included.
Under existing statutory law the illegitimate child...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Staker v. Ainsworth
...v. Owens, 619 P.2d 315 (Utah 1980).1 See generally Davis v. Modine Mfg. Co., 526 F.Supp. 943 (D.C.Kan.1981); Krupp v. Sackwitz, 30 Ill.App.2d 450, 174 N.E.2d 877 (1961); City of Rocky River v. State Employ. Relations Bd., 43 Ohio St.3d 1, 539 N.E.2d 103 (1989); Bonkowsky v. Bonkowsky, 69 Oh......
-
Estate of Bartolini, In re, 1-94-3658
...and section 2-2(h) of the Probate Act. 755 ILCS 5/2-2(h) (West 1994). Correspondingly, the Illinois decisions in Krupp v. Sackwitz, 30 Ill.App.2d 450, 174 N.E.2d 877 (1961), In re Estate of Karas, 21 Ill.App.3d 564, 315 N.E.2d 603 (1974) and Dotson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 157 Ill.App.3d 10......
-
Karas' Estate, In re
...40). Thus they have not been legitimatized in accord with section 12 of the probate Act, and under prior case law (Krupp v. Sackwitz (1961), 30 Ill.App.2d 450, 174 N.E.2d 877, appeal denied, 21 Ill.2d 621) are not considered heirs of their fathers, who died At common law an illegitimate cou......
-
Karas' Estate, In re
... ... This same argument, involving this same statute, was presented and fully disposed of, Krupp v. Sackwitz (1961), 30 Ill.App.2d 450, 174 N.E.2d 877, where, under very similar facts, the Appellate Court for the Fourth District, through Mr ... ...