Williams v. Wilson

Decision Date08 November 1923
Docket Number8 Div. 508.
Citation97 So. 911,210 Ala. 289
PartiesWILLIAMS v. WILSON ET AL.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.

Bill of Charlie Williams against James E. Wilson and others. From a decree denying relief, complainant appeals. Affirmed.

William L. Chenault and J. Foy Guin, both of Russellville, for appellant.

Kirk &amp Rather, of Tuscumbia, for appellees.

BOULDIN J.

The suit is for redemption of lands from mortgage foreclosure sale.

The equities of the bill were settled on former appeal from decree on demurrer. Williams v. Wilson, 205 Ala 119, 87 So. 549. The court below dismissed the bill on the merits; hence this appeal.

Both parties claim through one Mac Smith, the common source of title.

Complainant Charlie Williams, claims by descent, and respondents, James E. Wilson and others, by purchase at foreclosure sale under mortgage.

Respondents deny that Charlie Williams is a legitimate descendant and heir of Mac Smith, deceased. His legitimacy, vel non, is the controlling question in the case.

On this issue the record discloses the following interesting history: Some time before the Civil War, a family of the name of Gray moved into and settled in Franklin county. In this family was a daughter, Rachael Allard Gray. A young man, Jack Adkinson, came with the Gray family. Shortly before the war, Jack Adkinson and Rachael Gray were living together on the Bonds place as husband and wife. They held themselves out and were generally reputed and received in the neighborhood as such. To them were born two children who died in infancy and were buried in the neighborhood under the name of Adkinson. There was no record evidence, and no evidence of a public ceremonial marriage. All direct evidence of above facts is from witnesses testifying from childhood memories about events some 60 years past. Other evidence is of general repute, some of which was current some 30 years thereafter. On an issue of legitimacy, raised after so long a time, we would seriously question the sufficiency of this testimony, standing alone, to establish the lawful relation of husband and wife between Jack Adkinson and Rachael Gray, when followed by a breaking off and abandonment of the relation and subsequent marriage of one or both of the parties.

The history proceeds: Some time during the war Jack Adkinson moved his family in the yard of the home of Mr. Bonds, raised a company, became its captain, and entered the Confederate Army. It appears he visited home a time or two during the war. When the war was over he did not return; he was not heard from; he was generally reputed to be dead; Rachael returned to her old home, and was generally known as the widow of Adkinson. Two or three years after the surrender, Rachael married Mac Smith. They founded their own home. To them were born three children. The youngest died when a child. The two oldest, Alice Smith and Monroe Smith, were twins. Alice married Bill Williams, and became the mother of complainant, Charlie Williams.

While there is no record evidence of the marriage of Rachael to Mac Smith, the courthouse having been burned, we think this record sufficiently shows that it was an open, public marriage, celebrated in the usual way. This family relation continued without interruption for about 20 years. Alice Smith, the issue of this marriage, was then about grown. At that point in their history, all the presumptions of her legitimacy obtained. Weatherford v. Weatherford, 20 Ala. 548, 56 Am. Dec. 206; Lay v. Fuller, 178 Ala. 375, 59 So. 609; Moore v. Heineke, 119 Ala. 627, 24 So. 374; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 201 Ala. 482, 78 So. 388; Bell v. Bell, 196 Ala. 465, 71 So. 465; Prince v. Edwards, 175 Ala. 532, 57 So. 714; 26 Cyc. 880.

About the year 1890, Jack Adkinson, Rachael's long absent husband, returned. He came to the home of her brother, Jim Gray. Word was sent to Rachael, who promptly left her home, husband, and children, and went to Adkinson. They resumed the relations of husband and wife. They so lived under the roof of her brother, who had full knowledge of the original relations between them. It was generally known and talked in the community that Rachael had gone back to her husband Adkinson. It was known to Mac Smith, who took no action. They then moved to themselves, lived in Florence for a time, and then returned to the home of Jim Gray.

After thus living in their renewed relation of husband and wife for a few months, the exact time not certain, Rachael one day left Adkinson, returned to her home and children, was received by Mac Smith; the family relation was resumed, and they continued to live together as husband and wife until Mac Smith's death some 8 or 10 years thereafter. Adkinson remained in the neighborhood a few months, then went away. Monroe Smith, complainant's uncle, testified he saw Adkinson "just a while" before his father (Mac Smith) died.

Jim Gray, Mac Smith, and Rachael Gray- Adkinson-Smith are all dead. The record is silent as to any divorce on behalf of either of the parties.

The facts of the return of Rachael to the embraces of Jack Adkinson and her subsequent return to Mac Smith, as above, are admitted on both sides.

On this state of the facts, what are the presumptions and just inferences as to whether Rachael and Mac Smith were ever lawfully married?

Appellant's argument is well summarized in brief of counsel thus:

"The complainant's attorney is of the opinion that the law is that presumptively the first union was illegal, and further that if same were legal the presumption of law is that Rachael was divorced from Adkinson, or Adkinson from Rachael; that the duty rested on the defendants attacking the complainant's legitimacy to show a ceremonial marriage with Adkinson, and further to show the absence of a decree of divorce."

All these presumptions have been indulged in some cases as shown by above authorities. Do they operate here?

"A presumption of fact is that mental process by which the existence of one fact is inferred from proof of some other fact or facts with which experience shows it is usually associated by succession or coexistence. It is inseparable from inductive reasoning as an inference of the unknown from proof of the known." 22 C.J. p. 83, § 26, and note.
"These merely natural presumptions are derived wholly and directly from the circumstances of the particular case, by means of the common experience of mankind." 1 Greenl. on Ev. (16th Ed.) p. 144, § 44.
"Presumptions which may properly be made, are only justifiable, where they are the natural, or necessary consequence of the acts proved." Garner v. Green, 8 Ala. 96, 98.

When, in the reasoning process, the trior of fact has reached a fair conclusion on one phase of the evidence, this conclusion may be used as a premise in passing upon other evidence; but one presumption cannot be based wholly on another presumption. 22 C.J. p. 84, § 27, and note.

In raising presumption, certain principles of justice and fair dealing among men must always obtain in the judicial mind. It should be a natural inference from the facts of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Willis v. Willis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • October 1, 1935
    ......777. The plaintiff in this case. acted in good faith. The presumption is that the plaintiff. acted in good faith. 22 C. J. 144; Williams v. Wilson,. (Ala.) 97 So. 911; Coad v. Coad, (Nebr.) 127. N.W. 455; Bank v. Ford, 30 Wyo. 110; McInturff. v. Insurance Company, (Ill.) 93 ......
  • Martin v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 11, 1932
    ......635, sec. 365; 1 Wigmore on Evidence,. sec. 41; Ins. Co. v. Lankerhet Co., 70 Ind.App. 324;. Power Co. v. Board, 74 Ind.App. 199; Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289; Sliwowski v. Railroad, 94. Conn. 303; Welsch v. L. & P. Co., 197 Iowa 1012;. C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Ware, 122 Va. 246; ......
  • Rogers v. McLeskey
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 9, 1932
    ......108;. Woodward Iron Co. v. Dean, 217 Ala. 530, 532, 117. So. 52, 60 A. L. R. 536; Walker v. Walker, 218 Ala. 16, 117 So. 472; Wall v. Williams, 11 Ala. 826. . . In. Fuquay v. State, 217 Ala. 4, 9, 114 So. 898, the. cases are collected, the usual presumptions discussed, and. ...Edwards, 175. Ala. 532, 57 So. 714; Fuquay v. State, 217 Ala. 4,. 114 So. 898; White v. Hill, 176 Ala. 480, 489, 58. So. 444; Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289, 291, 97. So. 911; Banks v. State, 96 Ala. 78, 11 So. 404;. Davidson v. Davidson, 206 Ala. 493, 90 So. 493; L. R. A. 1915E, 80 note, ......
  • Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 22, 1948
    ...when the evidence can reasonably and justly be reconciled with the hypothesis of legality. Ware v. Jones, 61 Ala. 288; Williams v. Wilson, 210 Ala. 289, 97 So. 911; Marengo Abstract Co. v. C. W. Hooper & Co., 174 Ala. 56 So. 580; Baker v. Lehman, Weil & Co., 186 Ala. 439 (11), 65 So. 321. '......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT