Case Title: Succession of Gaines

Citation: 227 La. 318, 79 So. 2d 322

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1955-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
79 So. 2d 322 (1955) 227 La. 318 SUCCESSION of Henry GAINES. (Consolidated with) SUCCESSION of Delphine JACKSON, No. 41666. Hattie Gaines CAIN et al. v. Annie Jackson BOUDOUSQUE et al. No. 41602. Lewis M. KAUFMAN v. James JACKSON, Jr. et al., No. 41603. No. 40713. Supreme Court of Louisiana. February 14, 1955. Rehearing Denied March 21, 1955. *323 C. Cyril Broussard, Baton Rouge, for appellant. Charles E. Richards, New Orleans, for appellee. MOISE, Justice. This appeal is prosecuted by the defendants from a judgment rendered by the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in favor of 1. Elizabeth Gaines, Wife of Albert Ross, who is a daughter of the deceased, Henry Gaines; and 2. Mary Helton, Wife of Albert Cunningham, and 3. John Dennis Helton, who are the children of Hattie Gaines Helton, a deceased daughter of Henry Gaines. The judgment maintained the legitimacy of Elizabeth Gaines Ross and Hattie Gaines Helton, and it named Elizabeth Gaines Ross, Mary Helton Cunningham and John Dennis Helton as the sole and only heirs of the deceased, Henry Gaines. The appellants are Hattie Gaines, Widow of Willie Cain, and Hettie Gaines, Wife of Abe Smith, who are sisters of the deceased, Henry Gaines. They have pleaded the incapacity of plaintiffs to be the heirs of Henry Gaines and assigned as a reason therefor that Elizabeth Jackson, the mother of Elizabeth Gaines Ross and Hattie Gaines Helton, was never married to Henry Gaines. The first thing to be determined in these consolidated cases, by way of chronological listing to make the issues understandable, is: "Who are the heirs of Henry Gaines?" The record discloses that Hattie Gaines Cain, the appellant sister, testified that her brother, Henry Gaines, was married but once and then to Mittie Williams, and that Mittie Williams departed this life without issue in 1932. She stated that she and her brother, Henry Gaines, lived in the same house with their mother, and that to her knowledge her brother never married Elizabeth Jackson, who was his step-sister. This testimony is contradicted. There is the direct *324 testimony of Mary Jackson, who swears that she actually witnessed the marriage between Elizabeth Jackson and Henry Gaines and that the ceremony was performed in the home by a preacher. On the question of proof, we find that some of the witnesses for the defendants swore that they had no knowledge of Henry Gaines' having been married to any person other than Mittie Williams. The testimony of the appellant, Hattie Gaines Cain, was uncertain. Because of the many contradictions shown in the record, we believe that the trial judge, who saw and heard her on the witness stand, did not attach much reliance to her testimony. On the other hand, the record discloses that the plaintiffs were unable to produce birth certificates of Elizabeth Gaines Ross and Hattie Gaines Helton and a marriage license between Henry Gaines and Elizabeth Jackson. There is assigned the reason therefor that no records were kept. Elizabeth Gaines Ross, appellee, testified that she was young when her mother died; that she and her sister, Hattie Gaines Helton, were reared by their stepmother; that she was sent to school by her father, Henry Gaines, and that he was known as her father. There is shown in the record that Henry Gaines named Elizabeth Gaines Ross as the beneficiary of an insurance policy, and that it was stated in that policy that she was his daughter. Elizabeth Gaines Ross arranged for her father's funeral at his death and assigned this policy to the funeral home in payment of the funeral expenses. Mary Helton Cunningham, the granddaughter of Henry Gaines, stated that Henry Gaines reared her and her brother, John Dennis Helton. All of these litigants are of color. The trial judge felt that the preponderance of believable evidence was in favor of the plaintiffs and appellees. We have announced the doctrine that illegitimacy and incapacity to inherit must be proved by competent evidence. Simon v. Richard, 42 La.Ann. 842, 8 So. 629. In the Succession of Curtis, 161 La. 1045, 1051, 109 So. 832, 834, we have the following quotation: Reverting to our own lawArticle 952 of the LSACivil Code reads: The defendants have been unable to prove the incapacity of plaintiffs. Article 194 of the LSACivil Code reads: The plaintiffs have filled the requirements of this Article, and have also submitted proof in accordance with Article 195 of the LSACivil Code, which reads: In the case of Cameron v. Rowland, 208 La. 663, at page 670, 23 So. 2d 283, at page 285, we made the following pronouncement: There was one witness to the marriage of Henry Gaines and Elizabeth Jackson. In the Succession of Kneipp, 172 La. 411, at page 417, 134 So. 376, at page 379, we said: Under the law and evidence, we believe that the judgment of the district court was correct and that the appellants were not successful in showing that the judgment was manifestly erroneous. Rosenthal v. Gauthier, 224 La. 341, 69 So. 2d 367; Nalty v. Nalty, 222 La. 911, 64 So. 2d 216; Moser v. Moser, 220 La. 295, 56 So. 2d 553. For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court, maintaining the legitimacy of Elizabeth Gaines Ross and Hattie Gaines *326 Helton and recognizing Elizabeth Gaines Ross, Mary Helton Cunningham and John Dennis Helton as the sole and only heirs of Henry Gaines, is affirmed. All costs to be paid by the defendants.