Thomas v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 22 April 1946 |
| Docket Number | 36109. |
| Citation | 25 So.2d 710,200 Miss. 96 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | THOMAS v. THOMAS. |
H H. Parker, of Poplarville, and G. B. Keaton, of Picayune, for appellant.
Nate S. Williamson and E. T. Strange, both of Meridian, and J. E. Stockstill, of Picayune, for appellee.
Appellant filed her petition to remove the administrator of the estate of Will Thomas, deceased, for possession of certain personalty, and for a decree adjudging her to be the sole heir of Will Thomas. She asks also to be appointed administratrix. Appellee, cited as a defendant, denied that Lettie Thomas was the lawful wife and now the sole heir of the deceased, but alleged that appellee was his daughter and as such his sole heir. The Chancellor held that appellant was the common law wife of Will Thomas and that the appellee was his legitimate child and entitled to share in the estate together with appellant. By agreement the status of the administrator was not affected. To the direct appeal of appellant, the appellee filed a cross-appeal. Each claims to be the sole heir.
The testimony is without dissent that appellee was born out of wedlock and was the daughter of Angeline Thomas to whom Will Thomas was later married in Louisiana, September 4, 1919. Angeline died in 1922 and shortly thereafter Will Thomas moved to Picayune, Mississippi. It is further beyond dispute and the Chancellor correctly found, that Will Thomas then and there accepted appellant as his common-law wife and that they lived together as such until his death in 1944.
Appellee was never legitimated according to the laws of Louisiana although Will Thomas later married her mother in that State. For her to become a lawful heir in this State it must be shown first that she was and natural daughter of Will Thomas that both parents were later lawfully married and that the father acknowledged her as his daughter in this State. Code 1942, Section 474.
We are agreed that if she is not shown to be the daughter of Will Thomas we need not examine whether there is adequate proof of his acknowledgment of her as his daughter, nor whether if this be shown her status as an heir would be thereby established in view of Smith v. Kelly's Heirs, 23 Miss. 167, 55 Am.Dec. 87. We prefer to base our decision upon the insufficiency of the proof to establish either the paternity of Will Thomas or his recognition of appellee as his own daughter.
The testimony is more than merely preponderant that appellee was born before Will Thomas met her mother. She was generally known as Geneva Dunn and her mother was quoted as having stated that one Homer Dunn was her father. Dunn himself testified to the contrary. We need not recite...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Califano
...may not serve to legitimate a child for inheritance purposes in Mississippi does not withstand a close reading of Thomas v. Thomas, 200 Miss. 96, 25 So.2d 710 (1946), the case relied on in support of that argument. In Thomas, the Supreme Court of Mississippi found that the alleged child of ......
-
Hulitt v. Jones
...of Otley Jones, that both parents were later lawfully married, and that the father acknowledged her as his daughter. Thomas v. Thomas, 1946, 200 Miss. 96, 25 So.2d 710. In the instant case, the second requirement is clearly established: that Otley and Anna married after the birth of the chi......
-
Estate of Stutts v. Stutts
...married and the father acknowledged such person as his child an illegitimate could not inherit through the estate of his father, Thomas v. Thomas, 200 Miss. 96, Additionally, for some unknown reason, the 1965 court made its determination as to the paternity of appellants on the basis of the......
-
In The Matter Of The Estate Of v. Gorden
...a young girl. No evidence was presented that Kendrick had ever expressly disclaimed Sonja as his daughter. Cf. Thomas v. Thomas, 200 Miss. 96, 102 25 So. 2d 710, 711 (1946). ¶18. In Gusta, the supreme court affirmed the chancery court's ruling in favor of an illegitimate child's claim that ......