State v. Shoemaker

• Decision Date: 10 December 1883
• Citation: 62 Iowa 343,17 N.W. 589
• Parties: STATE v. SHOEMAKER.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

62 Iowa 343

17 N.W. 589

STATE

v.SHOEMAKER.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed December 10, 1883.

Appeal from Wapello district court.

This is a proceeding under chapter 56, tit. 35, of the Code, to charge defendant with the support of a bastard child. The case was tried to a jury, and, upon the evidence introduced by plaintiff, the court directed the jury to find for defendant, which was done. Plaintiff appeals.H. B. Hendershott, Samuel Jones, and Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Stiles & Beaman, for appellee.

BECK, J.

1. The undisputed facts, as disclosed by the evidence for the state, establish the following facts: (1) The child was begotten by the defendant, and was born on the thirteenth day of August, 1882; (2) prior to its birth, on the first day of June, 1882, the mother, the prosecutrix, married another man, named Getz; (3) at and before the marriage Getz was informed by the prosecutrix that she was enceinte. Her condition was apparent from her appearance. Upon these facts the district court held that plaintiff could not recover, and directed the jury to return a verdict for defendant.

2. Under chapter 56, tit. 25, of the Code, a father may be charged with the maintenance of his illegitimate child. The proceeding thereunder is entitled as an action in the name of the state against the alleged father, and may be prosecuted upon the complaint of the mother. It is a civil action of a summary nature, (Holmes v. State, 2 G. Greene, 501;Black Hawk Co. v. Cotter, 32 Iowa, 125,) and is intended to secure the maintenance of the bastard, to the end that in no event shall the public become chargeable therewith. Of course, if one stands in the relation to the child which will cause the law to esteem him liable as its father for its support, being in loco parentis, the proceeding cannot be prosecuted against another who is in fact the natural father. The one whose relations are such that he stands in loco parentis, the law esteems the father, and will not, for various reasons, inquire by whom the child was begotten.

One who marries a woman known by him to be enceinte is regarded by the law as adopting into his family the child at its birth. He could not expect that the mother upon its birth would discard the child and refuse to give it nurture and maintenance. The law would forbid a thing so unnatural. The child receiving its support from the mother, must of necessity become one of her family, which is equally the family of the husband. The child, then, is received into the family of the husband, who stands as to it in loco parentis.This being the law, it entered into the marriage contract between the mother and the husband. When this relation is established the law raises a conclusive presumption that the husband is the father of his wife's illegitimate child. We must not be understood to hold that this rule prevails in cases involving questions of heirship and inheritance. In these cases the rights of others besides the husband and bastard arise. In this case the rights and liabilities of the husband and child are alone involved; they rest upon the relations which impose upon the husband the duty of maintaining the child. Our conclusion is supported by public policy, and considerations which make for the peace and well-being of families. A husband...