Popp v. Roth, 8956
| Decision Date | 24 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 8956,8956 |
| Parties | d 96 George POPP, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Arie Peter ROTH and Gerarda Roth, his wife, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
William G. Fowler, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Lyle M. Ward, Salt Lake City, for respondents.
George Popp, appellant herein, sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was the natural father of Lore Popp, a minor child, and that the respondents Roth were unlawfully restraining her. The respondents' answer denied that appellant was the natural father of Lore Popp and averred that the child was an illegitimate child and was placed with them for adoption with the relinquishment and written consent of its natural mother.
After hearing evidence presented by the parties the court found that appellant was not the natural father of the minor child; that the child was illegitimate and in the custody of respondents pursuant to the consent of the natural mother as required by Sec. 78-30-4, U.C.A.1953, and an order of the court in connection with adoption proceedings. The court further found that appellant was not a proper person to have the custody of the child and that its best interests and welfare required that respondents retain custody.
The undisputed facts are that the child was born to an unwed mother in Peoria, Illinois in June, 1955. The mother went through a marriage ceremony with appellant in July, 1955, and in February, 1957, they made application to have a new birth certificate issued to show that the child was the legitimate issue of appellant and the natural mother. The application, based on affidavits of appellant and the natural mother to the effect that he was the natural father, was granted and a new certificate issued. Appellant is a citizen of Germany. On June 28, 1955, a German court had granted a divorce to appellant's former wife in Germany. A literal interpretation of the language of the divorce decree is to the effect that it 'becomes legally effective as of November 21, 1955.'
In September, 1957, the natural mother left appellant, taking the minor child involved herein with her to Salt Lake City, Utah, and by October, 1957, placed it for adoption with respondents. In adoption proceedings held in a District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, the natural mother testified that the child was illegitimate and that appellant was not its natural father.
It is appellant's contention that the writ should have been granted because Sec. 78-30-4, U.C.A.1953, provides that a 'legitimate child cannot be adopted without the consent of the parents, if living * * *' and that the child was legitimated by the proceedings in Illinois when after the marriage of appellant and the natural mother she was acknowledged to be their child and the birth certificate amended to show that she was the child of this couple. In support of this contention appellant cites Chap. 3, Sec. 163, Ill.Rev.Stat., 1953, which provides that '[A]n illegitimate child whose parents intermarry and who is acknowledged by the father as the father's child shall be considered legitimate.'
The court having found as facts that the child was not legitimate and that appellant is not its natural father, it is necessary to determine whether from the testimony and documents introduced there was sufficient evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Buhman
...as a “purported marriage” a marriage that was legally invalid because one party was judged incompetent); Popp v. Roth, 9 Utah 2d 96, 338 P.2d 123, 124 (Utah 1959) (stating that a man who “purportedly married” a woman when he was already married did not “enter into a valid marriage”); In re ......
-
State v. Holm
...(describing as a "purported marriage" a marriage that was legally invalid because one party was judged incompetent); Popp v. Roth, 9 Utah 2d 96, 338 P.2d 123, 124 (1959) (stating that a man who "purportedly married" a woman when he was already married did not "enter into a valid marriage");......
-
Estate of Bartolini, In re, 1-94-3658
...8 (1947); In re Moncrief's Will, 235 N.Y. 390, 139 N.E. 550 (1923); Greenhow v. James Executor, 80 Va. 636 (1885); Popp v. Roth, 9 Utah 2d 96, 338 P.2d 123 (1959), which appear to articulate the defendant's position. Upon our review of these authorities, we find that the cases supporting pl......
-
Duncan, In re
...110 Utah 187, 170 P.2d 183; Anderson v. Anderson, 121 Utah 237, 240 P.2d 966; Cahoon v. Pelton, 9 Utah 2d 224, 342 P.2d 94; Popp v. Roth, 9 Utah 2d 96, 338 P.2d 123. A purported marriage, void for any reason, is 'subject to both direct and collateral attack, by anyone, at any time, in any c......