Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-07-01
Judge McVey Rules That Cora
Fairchild May Recover
$1,000 From Wilson
UNAVOIDABLE BY BANKRUPTCY
The Point in Question Was as to
Whether Judgment Against Man
for Support Of His Illieitimate Child
is a Provable Debt in Bankruptcy
Proceedinss-History of the Case.

Des Moines, July IA discharge in
the United States court of bankruptcy
does not relieve a man from support
ling his illegitimate child, according TO
opinion handed down in district court
yesterday by Judge McNey, when he
ruled that Cora Eairchild could recover
$1,000 from S. G.. Wilson and dissolved
the injunction which restrained the
which he had attached
The point was one which had never
been ruled upon before in this state,
and was summed up in the question,
rs Judgment against a man for the
support of his child. born out of we'd
Hook, a provable debt IL bankruptcy
proceedings? 1t is ruled that it is not,
and in the following opinion Judge Nc
Vey gives the history of the case and
The reasons which impel him to hold in
favor of the unfortunate child, who
was brought into this world and thrown
upon society:
! In the year 1897. Cora Fairchild,
{
against the plaintiff, Wilson, for the
support of their child. born out of we'd
Hook, in the sum of one thousand dol
lars, $4,000 and costs. On the 18th
| day of May, 1899. the plaintiff, Wilson,
| filed his petition in bankruptcy in the
district court of tn United States for
: the southern district OF Iowa, asking TO
| be relieved from his debts and obiiga-
MI ,t.a,-
act. AS a part of his liabilities he
scheduled the Judgment of one thou
sand dollars, ($1,0O0) in favor of Cira
Fairchild. The defendant, Cora Fair
child, appeared in said court by her
attorneys and resisted the discharge
III the plaintiff. Upon final hearing and
determination of the case. the plaintiff
was adjudged bankrupt and event
ually discharged under the national
bankruptcy law, his discharge bearing
date of April II, 1900.
In May, 1900, an execution was is
sued out of this court ana placed IN
the hands &C TIC -acrift and levy was
made upon >s.,,ia no 49, oHIonglns
To the plaintiff, which MAS advertised
to be sold ON the 18th day of June,
1908, and thereupon the plainilt
brought this action against the defend-
ant Fairchild. Polk county, Iowa, ana
G. w, Mattern, sheriff, praying that
writ of injunction be issued restraining
and enjoining the defendants from sell
ling or offering for sale the property
levied upon.
"The question therefore remains to be
considered whether or not the Juds-
ment for the support of the child In
question differs in principle from
Judgment for alimony, or whether or
not its obligations are other ana diner
ent or less important to the puoilc ana
the parties concerned. Section $3.50 OF
the code provides: That If the accused
be found guilty(of being the father OF
tn child he shall be charged Win the
maintenance of the child in such sum or
sums in such manner as the court shaii
direct, and with the costs of the actloh'
and the clerk may Immediately issue
execution for any sum ordered 10 ne
maid and afterward, from time TO time,
as il shall be required to compel COM
pliance with the order If the court.
1T viii be perceived, therefore, that
in addition to the obligations imposed
by the moral duty of the father OF such
child to maintain the same, is expressly
enioined by the statutes of Iowa. Inc
duty of parents to provide for the main
tainance of their children, it is said, is
in accordance with natural law and is
also a duty which the municipal laws
of all we'll regulated nations have taken
care to enforce This is a duty also I'M
posed by the common law, where II Is
uniformly held that the father is legal
lly bound to support his minor chlidren
lif able so to do, and this is true altho
they may have property of their own.
The state as such has an interest in the
enforcement of the obligation OF the
parent TO support his minor children.
The very foundations of society rest up
on the obligation of the parent TO care
for and maintain according to his sta
| ton in life, his offspring. This is a duty
which the state imposes and which all
| civilized nations recognize and enforce.
1--WE. therefore, come TO the consid-
GRAFTON of the question whether or not
the father of an llegitinate child is
under less obligation to maintain his
| offspring than he is to maintain child
horn in lawful wedlock. 1t will be per-
ceived that the principle upon which
the obligation rests is tho protection of
society and the fulfillment of the duty
of support to the child itself. The
obligation is not for the benefit of the
parent or to punish the parent but the
obligation arises out of the relation be-
tween the parties and the duty of the
parent to see that the child does not
become a public charge, and that it
! shall be maintained and supported in
! accordance with the station in life
| in which it happens to be born. The
question is: Does the law impose on
| the father of an illegitimate child the
| oblisation to maintain such child and
| TO relieve the public from the burden of
of its support and to prevent 1T from
| growing rp without education, care and
| support? Indeed, the condition of such
| children, If abandoned by their natural
parents thru no fault Of their own. is
| more deplorable than the children of
persons so treated born in lawful we'd
! lock: and if ii be true, as the supreme
| court of the United States and many
| of the courts of the last resort in other
Estates and in England have SAID, that
there is a public and moral obligation
resting upon the husband to support
| his wife, altho living under decree
| of court, separated from her husband,
there certainly is an equal obligation
| devolving upon n father of a child to
maintain and support such enid Such
| obligation does not arise out of any
! contract between the father and the
I In fat