Smith v. Derr's Administrators
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Citation | 34 Pa. 126 |
| Parties | Smith versus Derr's Administrators. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
W. C. Johnston, for the plaintiff in error.
Paul Leidy, for the defendants in error.
This case is covered by the principle decided in Doe v. Vardill, 5 Barn. & C. 438, 6 Bing. N. C. 385; that a person born out of wedlock, and legitimated by the Scotch law, by the subsequent marriage of his parents, cannot inherit land in England. That case was so thoroughly and learnedly discussed in the King's Bench, Exchequer Chamber, and House of Lords, that we are saved from the labour which would be required if the question were new.
Nancy is an illegitimate niece of the intestate, born in Tennessee, and legitimated there on the petition of her father, by a proceeding in court. This forgives the vice of her birth in Tennessee, but not here. By our law, none can inherit but such as are "born in lawful wedlock;" except that a bastard may be heir to his mother, and perhaps some other recent exceptions. The fact that inheritable capacity is granted by law elsewhere, cannot change our law of descents. A capacity in Tennessee does not prove capacity here. So far as our law is concerned, legitimation by the subsequent marriage of the parents abroad, by act of a foreign legislature or by judicial decree abroad, are all fruitless. If they are allowed to constitute inheritable capacity here, then adoption might have the same effect. Then we should be without any law of inheritances in favour of relations in other states, except such as our neighbours should be pleased to give us. It is the fact of birth in wedlock that gives inheritable capacity, and not any artificial legitimation.
Judgment affirmed, and record remitted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A---. B---. v. C---. D---.
...as to enable one to take by inheritance in another state where the law of that state would not permit such inheritance. Smith v. Derr, 34 Pa. 126, 75 Am.Dec. 461 (641).'This principle of law is also recognized in other states. Lingen v. Lingen, 45 Ala. 410; Stoltz v. Doering, 112 Ill. 234; ......
-
Brewer v. Browning
... ... ETHRIDGE, ... J. COOK, J., took no part in this decision ... SMITH, ... C. J., and SYKES, J., dissenting ... OPINION ... [76 So. 268] ... ...
-
State ex rel. Damon v. McQuillin
... ... Writ ... Joseph ... A. Wright and S. T. G. Smith for relators ... (1) ... Will contest in Missouri is a proceeding in rem and ... ...
-
In re McCausland's Estate
...for appellant. -- The legitimacy of the claimant is to be determined by the law of Pennsylvania, and not by the law of Colorado: Smith v. Derr, 34 Pa. 126. by Jacob W. McCausland, or legitimation by act of the legislature, cannot enable the claimant to take as a purchaser, under a limitatio......