Case Name: Morris v. Williams
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1883-01
Citations: 39 Ohio St. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris v. Williams.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 39
Pages: 554–558

Head Matter:
Morris v. Williams.
The issue of a slave marriage, though their parents died before the emancipation proclamation, are, under the statutes of this state, lawful heirs of their father as to lands situated in this state.
Error to the District Court of Meigs county.
In 1817, in Mason county, Virginia, Thomas Williams and Katie, slaves, were, at their request, joined together as husband and wife, in the usual form of a marriage in that state, by their master, Eev. John.- Gv Nelson, a minister of the Baptist church, in the presence of a number of persons. They lived together as husband and wife several years, and during the cohabitation, Edmund Williams, only issue of the marriage was born. Thomas Williams was not the father of any. other child. Some years subsequent to the birth of Edmund, Katie was sold, taken to South Carolina, and died there in slavery in 1857. Thomas, becoming free in 1849, removed to Ohio, and during the same year, purchased a house and lot in Middleport, Meigs county, in which house he resided until his death. In 1851, Thomas was married, in Ohio, to Lavina Ash, who at the time had several children, parties to this suit. In 1856, Thomas died, leaving $50 of the purchase price of the property unpaid, which sum was paid by Lavina Williams,, the widow, and the vendor made to her a deed for.the premises. In 1860 Lavina Williams died, leaving her children in. possession of the property.
Edmund Williams, becoming free in 1863, by force of the. emancipation proclamation, came to Ohio, and brought suit in. the court of common pleas of Meigs county, to compel the children and heirs of Lavina to convey to him the premises, account for the rents, and deliver possession.
The cause having been appealed to the district court, was. heard therein in 1876, on petition, answer, reply, and testi-. mony, showing the material facts to be as above stated ; and upon such hearing, the court adjudged that Edmund Wil liams should pay to the children and heirs of Lavina, the. purchase money paid by her, amounting, in principal and interest, to $107.50 ; that on such payment being made, the children and heirs of Lavina should convey the premises to Edmund Williams, and in default of compliance with the order, the decree, should operate as a conveyance ; and that on ten days’ notice, after such payment, such children and heirs should deliver possession to Edmund, and failing to do so, the sheriff should deliver such possession, on an order to be issued for the purpose.
.To reverse the judgment so rendered, the children and heirs of Lavina. filed this petition in error.
E. A. Guthrie and Martin Hays, for plaintiff in error : . ■
Claiming that the marriage of.Thomas Williams and.Katie,. being void by the laws of Yirginia, was also void here, cited, in argument the following: State v. Samuel, 2 Dev. &. B. L. 177: Anderson v. Poindexter, 6 Ohio St. 622; Martin v. Reed, 37 Ala. 198; Bland v. Dowling, 9 G. & J. 19; 1 131. Com. 433; Chitty on Con. (Sth Am. ed.) 466; Patterson v. Gaines, 2 Howard U. S. 550; Wright (O.) 180, 186; Knowlton v. Erie P. Co., 19 Ohio St. 260; Story’s Confl. L. §§ 80, 89, 93, 121, 124; Schrimehier v. Schrimehier, 2 Hag. Con. 417; 2 Kent’s Com. 60; Hall v. United States, 92 U. S. 27; Price v. Slaughter, 1 Cin. Sup. Ct. 429; Stikes v. Swanson, 44 Ala. 633; Hall v. Mullen, 5 H. & J. 190; Sarah v. Gardner, 24 Ala. 719; Smith v. State, 9 Ala. 990; Com. v. Glemenits, 6 Bin. 206; Timms v. Laey, 30 Tex. 115; Johnson v. Johnson, 45 Mo. 495; State v. Taylor, Phillips, 508; Estil v. Rogers, 1 Bush, 62; Howard v. Howard, 6 Jones L. 235; Jackson v. Lewey, 5 Cowen, 397; Stephens on West Ind, Slavery, 58; Emerson v. Howland, 1 Mason, 51; 1 Par. on Con. 414, § 8; Pierre v. Fontenette, 25 La. Ann. 617; 40 Mo. 595; Girod v. Lewis, 6 Mart. La. 559; Shafher v. State, 20 Ohio, 1; Waymire v. Jetmore, 22 Ohio St. 273; Gregg v. Thompson, 2 Const. Ct. Rep. 331; Jenkins v. Brown, 6 Humph. 299; Emerson v. Howland, 1 Mass. 45; Bynum v. Boetrick, 4 Des. 266; Cooper’s Jus. (ed. of 1852), 411, 419; Roche v. Washington, 19 Ind. 53; Const. of Ohio, art. 1, § 19; Drake v. Rogers, 13 Ohio St. 21.
Grosvenor c& Vorhes and W. II. Laslcy, for defendant in error •.'■■■
Counsel claiming that Edmund Williams is the owner of the property in question, cited in argument the following: Carmicael v. State, 12 Ohio St. 553; 2 Kent’s Com. 51, 579; 1 Bishop Mar. & D. §§ 6 13, 163, 351, 410, 415, 451, 457; 1 Green. Ev. § 489 ; Ripple v. Ripple, 1 Rawle, 285; Heberd v. Myers, 5 Ind. 94; Allen v. Watson, 2 Hill S. C. 319; Ferguson on M. & D. § 397; Vattel, § 7; Price v. Slaughter, 1 Sup. Ct. 429; Story Conf. L. §§ 50, 98, 427, 484; Greenwood v. Curtis, 6 Mass. 374; Anderson v. Poindexter, 6 Ohio St. 656; Ordinance of 1787 ; Const, of 1802, Bill of Rights, § 6 ; Stikes v. Swanson, 44 Ala. 633; Malinda v. Gardner, 24 Ala. 719; Minor v. Jones, 2 Redfield’s Suv. 289; 3 Wash. R. P. 16; Wills v. Cowper, 2 Ohio, 129; Sell v. Miller, 11 Ohio St. 331; Clark v. Graham, 6 Wheat. 597; Kerr v. Mason, 9 Wheat. 566; McCormack v. Sullivan, 10 Wheat. 192; Cutter v. Davenport, 1 Pick. 81; Chapman v. Robinson, 6 Paige, 627; Curtis v. Hutton, 14 Ves. 537; Elliot v. Minton, 6 Mad. 16; Birtwistle v. Vardill, 5 B. & Cres. 438; Hoover v. Brem, 43. Miss. 603; Nelson v. Smithpeter, 2 Cold. 13 ; Banks v. Banks, H. 546; 1 S. & C. 504, § 16; Code of Va. (2d ed.) 679, § 7; Johnson v. Johnson, 30 Mo. 89; Cheseldine v. Brewer, 1 Har. & M. 152; Wright v. Love, 12 Ohio St. 619; Rev. Stats. § 5244; Hutchins v. Kimball, 31 Mich. 126; Meister v. Moore, 96 U. S. 76 ; Pierre v. Fontenette, 25 La. Am. 617; Brown v. McGhee, 12 Bush. 429; Bonham v. Badgley, 2 Gil. 628; Elliott v. Gurr, 2 Phil. Ec. 16; Godolphin’s Eccl. L. 486, § 22 ; Burns’ Eccl. L. 120 ; Cobb on Slavery, §§ 275, 276; Milledge v. Summer, 4 Des. 640; Randolph, 241; Jackson v. Leroy, 6 Cowen, 402; Bynum v. Boetrick, 4 Des. 267; Girod v. Lewis, 6 Mart. La. 559; Rodney v. R. R. Co., 19 Ill. 44; Rev. Stats. Mass. 1705, ch. 19, § 2; Quincy, 29; Dyer v. Brounock, 66 Mo. 392; Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 146; Jones v. Jones, 36 Md. 447; Willkinson v. Payne, 70 Pa. St 392; 4 D. & E. 468; Canteon v. Hood, 56 Ala. 519.

Opinion:
Okey, J.
The property in.question is réal estate, and descended according to the lex rei sites; but as Thomas Williams was domiciled here, at the time of his death, the law of Ohio would likewise have governed, if the property had 'been personal. The question, however, is, as stated, as to' the statutes of Ohio regulating the descent of real property ; and undoubtedly, in Ohio, the legitimate children of a man dying intestaté inherit his real estate. If the marriage of Thomas Williams and Katie was in all respects valid, Edmund Williams is the heir; and it will be seen that the same result follows if the marriage was invalid. The act of 1805 (Chase, 515), " regulating the course of descents and distribution of personal property," provided in section 13, borrowing from the civil law, "that where a man having by a woman one or more children, shall afterwards intermarry with such woman, such child or children, if recognized by him, shall be thereby legitimated. The issue, also, in marriages deemed null in law, shall nevertheless be legitimate." And that provision has remained in force, in substantially the same form,' to the present time. Chase, 906, 1314, 1790; 3 Curwen, 2273 ; 2 Swan & Cr. 504 § 16 ; Rev. Stats. § 4175.
We need not determine as to the precise effect of the Virginia marriage. If we assume it even to have been void,, the case is controlled by the provision quoted. If it was voidable, the case is still controlled by the statute, if, indeed, any such provision as to a voidable marriage was necessary. And clearly it is immaterial whether the marriage, "null in law," took place in this state or elsewhere. For the purpose of determining to whom the real property in question descended, Edmund Williams is, by force of this statute, which, for the present purpose, we assume controls the case, to be regarded as the legitimate son of Thomas Williams. True, acts were passed in 1804 and 1807 (Chase, 393, 555), in aid of the fugitive slave law, and imposing onerous disabilities on colored persons, and these blots upon our legislation were suffered to remain until 1849 (2 Curwen, 1466). Because of our policy toward colored' persons, thus indicated in our legislation, and because of the alleged incapacity of slaves to form any sort of contract, it is urged that the issue of slave marriages could not have been .contemplated when it was provided that the issue of marriages, null in law, shall be legitimate. But we are un willing to place any such limitation on the words of the statute. It is a familiar rule in the construction of statutes, that the language, where clear and comprehensive, is not to be limited in view of the particular instances which may be supposed to have led to its adoption, but the act should be held to embrace all cases fairly coming within its terms, if they are also within its reason and spirit. Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641, 649. Our conclusion that Edmund Williams inherited the property is supported by Wright v. Lore, 12 Ohio St. 619. The heirs of La vina hold the property in trust for Edmund, and the court made the proper order as to the terms lipón, and manner in which he might obtain possession.
Judgment affirmed.