The weekly clarion., 1874-03-19
- -. ALarell 2, ~ (


Susan Dickerson and Oliver Dickerson
COM plainants fled their bin Of complaint
in the Chancerv Court of Coahoma county,
i'm ,Jllly.1S73. against W a. Brown and
Marv-A -At34l Diekersoa, setting forth that
the complainants are the children and
heirs at law Of l.. = Dickefson, deceased,
late of said county, who departed this life
February 2, 1871, leaving q large real
and personal estate, particularly men
toned in the bill; that Mary Ann Dicker-
son one Of the respondents, is the mother
Of complainants; that them father, sad
L. r. D3ekerson, and mother, said Mary
Ann Dickerson, f'were never joined in
the bonds Of matrimony by any minister
al performance pf.any marriage ceremo-
ny, because at de time when THEN inter
course c6f1fenced, marriage between a
white man and a coiored woman was pro
hihited by law, but thai their father loved
their mother with all Abe ardor and dev0-
ton Of true lover, and while the laws Of
the State forbade the solemnization ofthe
marriage rights between them, they were
married ia heart and By tlielaWs Of nature
and Of love. that their fatherand mother
lived and acohabited together as husband
and wife; that the complainants were the
fruits of this union and-8efe always recog-
nized by their father as his children, and
they lived with him and their mother, and
continued to honor and obey him as their
father until death; that the intercourse
between the father and mother Of COM
plainants began in 1850, and continued
until his death; that he never attempted
to marry any woman Of his own color;
thlt heremained true to islove, and when
the bonds of slavery were stricken from
their mother, and when the new eonstltu-
ton Of the State proposed and legalized all
such marriages Of love, by declaring that
all persons who have Sfots been married,
but are now living together and cohabit-
int is husband and wife, shall be taken
andheld for all purposes In law as married,
and their children, whether born before OF
after the mtihcatiou OF this Constitutions.
shall belegifimate, their father and mother
continued 10 live together as before until
the ratification Of the Constitution; that
their father joyftlly- ethbraced this opp6r-4
tunity of doing justice to her who had
been sosmany years the partner OF his boz
som, andTo the ohitlreu of his loins; tllat
after he hadkeen tie provisions OF the
Constitution, and knew the effect of
continuance of his inercoRrse with their
mother, he rejoiced thataa public ceremo-
ny of marriage would l}9 anneeessary
that he would then in a$quiet and un-
obtrusive manner legalize his intercourse
with their mother into nafrimony; that
they yeontinued to live toeetheraAd cohabit-
Ell as husband aud wifa untiItheneW Con-
stituton was ratified; thata brotherof their
flther and one w n Brown have OBJ
tained possession of alIthe personal prop
erty of their fatheral1d aailve also obtained
an order to work the pIantation, and are
working the same; that the bond Of the
administrator lis insufficient thar the
widow is entitled to dover: and
that the administrator has sold crop
of cotton, etc, and The .bill brays
for a discovery. as to how much and
what kind of property has TO the
hands of the administrators belonging to
the estate, and what disposition he has
made of it, that the administrator be re-
ouired 10 give additional security on his
bond; that Il receiver be appointed;
that restitution of the property, after the
payment Of debts,s lie mafe; and for gen
eral relief etc, The respondent, APP
peaped, aud qsdemurred to the bill, stating
the following grounds therefore
l. The cOmplainants do not show that
they are the heirs of u T. Dickerson.
,. II. z. Diekerson, referred to in the
bill, is a necessary party thereto.
3. Because discovery is sought before
the expiration Of six months after the
grantof administration.
4.lshaF Ann Diekersen is improperly
made a party.
The first second aud. third gerunds.
of demurrer, were sustained and the bin
dismissed From that decree this appeal
IS prosecuted. The decree sustaining the
demurrer and dismissing the BILL consti-
Observation-Disclosures erTor-5 -
A somewhat novel case as thus present
ed, arising out Of our anomalous condi-
ton, thpugh. its solution is regarded as
simple, Inits consideration, the views of
thoselearued in this branch of the law,
have conducted 10 no uncertain or doubt
ful result
The American doetrine undoubtedly is
that the relation Of husband wife origi-
mates in CONTRACT which, ,Ehen executed,
imposes Upon the parties new relations to
each other andbtothe public. In some
respects this contract is unlike all other
contracts, particularly IN this, that it
is indissoluble, save in. the mode pointed
out by statue; Bishopy Mar, and Div.
272. egAEFriage is herein considered a
civiFc6ntrsct; i Bishop. NJ and ID. 19,
and may be entered into bv parties of
suitable age and mental capacity, by
mutual agreement or. assent; 1 Bish. NJ
and d. III, ,272, 179. The doctrine il con-
sidered established that a marriage good
at common law, IS good Notwithstanding
the exisEshce of any statue on the subject,
unless thesstatue- contains express words
of nallif{ ,tpid. 283, 2S4S Chancellor
Kent Judge. Reeve and Prof GreenIeaf.
in their text books, have considered cler-
ical intervention 10 be unnecessary at the
comt99n law, and this, says Bishop, may
well he .deeaed the \ merican doctrine,
I'D. 229p2 Kent 81; Reeve, Dom. Rel
195, eft seq; 2 Greenl. ev. D. 46o). Re-
peatiHgi. kat fore essJilia< s4.ale in siigbtIv
difereat ltInguage; Bishop, vol. 28a
says: at particular form OF words, there
fore, is essential to the solemnization of
marriage, lRuiesszthe statute not. only re-
quires-shesWoris.to be used, but declares
used" 49, - z - 's-,A.- e - {
Referring lostatntes reqHiElnga a license
and othefaceremenies Titp has been held,
that. 'sIhess directory provisions. though
prohiblt1EY and even penal with respect
to the officers, have not been regarded as
affecting the validity of marriage other
wise legal. Bish,, NJ 4 D., 2Sz; II B.
fasfn1 l4 .