Case ID: miss_32/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard Bates et al. v. Joseph R. Cotton et al.
    Husband and wim¡ : wno entitled to succeed to deceased wife’s estate, held under the act of 1839. — The children of a/me covert, being the issue of a marriage during which she acquired a separate estate in slaves, under the Act of 1839, are not entitled upon her death to succeed thereto to the exclusion of her children by a former marriage; all her children are equally entitled to the succession. Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. R. 90.
    Appeal from the Chancery Court of Amite county. Hon. Stanhope Posey, chancellor.
    Eliza Bates, during her first marriage, had issue the three complainants. Her first husband died anterior to 1839. On the 28th of February, 1839, she intermarried with Richard Bates, one of the appellants, and in 1842, became possessed in her own right of certain slaves, by distribution from her father’s estate. Three children were the fruit of the marriage. In 1856 she died, leaving her second husband, Bates, and all her children, surviving her. Bates retained the possession of the slaves, claiming his life estate therein and the remainder for his children; and denying that the complainants had any .right in them. Upon this state of facts the bill was filed, which alleged further that the complainants feared that Bates would remove or dispose of the property. Complainants sought to have their right established, each to one-sixth part of the slaves, upon the death of Bates, and prayed that he might be required to give security for the safe keeping of the slaves during his life estate, and for their delivery after his death. Bates and the children by the last marriage, were made defendants.
    The defendants demurred to the bill, and their demurrer being overruled, they appealed.
    
      I). W. Hurst, for appellants,
    cited Hutch. Dig.
    
      Geo. L. Potter, for appellees,
    Cited Marshall v. King, 2 Cushm. 90; 4 lb. 539; 5 lb. 345; Lee v. Bennett, 31 Miss. R. 119; Robb v. Griffin, 4 Cushm. 599; Smith v. Daniel, 2 M‘Cord, Ch. It. 140 ; 1 lb. 227; 1 Hill. Ch. 157; 4 Dessaus. 26; 13 Conn. 42.
   Per Curiam.

That all the children of the wife, though born of different marriages, are entitled to succeed to her separate estate, held under the Act of 1839, was settled in the case of Marshall v. King, 24 Miss. R. 90. We have seen no reason since to change the opinion then expressed.

The decree is affirmed and the cause remanded, with leave to defendants to answer within sixty days.