Case Name: Page versus Dennison
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1857-02-14
Citations: 1 Grant 377
Docket Number: 
Parties: Page versus Dennison.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Grant)
Volume: 1
Pages: 377–389

Head Matter:
Page versus Dennison.
By the court, per Mr. Justice Knox.
1. If a child is begotten while its mother is a married woman, its legitimacy is presumed, until the contrary is clearly made to appear.
2. The presumption of legitimacy of a child can be removed by showing that the husband had no sexual intercourse with his wife at any time when it was possible for the child to have been begotten.
3. Ante-nuptial conception does not weaken the presumption of legitimacy arising from a post-nuptial birth.
4. A child born in wedlock, though born within a month or a day after marriage, is legitimate by presumption of law, and this can only be rebutted by clearly proving that no sexual intercourse occurred between the two at any time when the child could have been begotten.
5. Where a child is born during wedlock, of which the mother was visibly pregnant, at the- time of the marriage, it is presumed juris et dejwreihaA it is the offspring of the husband.
6. Whether the child is begotten in or out of wedlock, if marriage precedes the birth, the presumption of paternity is the saíne, and it can only be bastardized by proof of non-access.
Y. The wife is not a competent witness to prove non-access on the part of her husband, and that her child begotten befor^, but born during wedlock, was not begotten by him.
8. Non-access cannot be proved either by the husband or the wife, whether the action be civil or criminal, or whether the proceeding is one of settlement or bastardy, or to recover property claimed as heir-at-law.
9. For the purpose of establishing the illegitimacy of a child where no evidence of non-access at the time of conception was given, it is not competent to prove the declarations made by the husband at the time of its birth, that the child was not his, or of the mother that it was begotten by R., and that on the account of its alleged illegitimacy it was reared by its grandfather.
10. The modern rule is, that, where the evidence plainly shows such non-access on the part of the husband that he could not, in the course of nature, have been the father of the child, it is sufficient to establish its illegitimacy.
By Mr. Justice Lowrie, dissenting.
1. In an inheritance case, where the claimant was begotten before and born after marriage, the mother is a competent witness to prove that her deceased husband, whose estate is the subject of the claim, was not the father of the claimant.
2. Where a child was begotten before and born after marriage, and at the time of its birth both the mother and her husband denied that it was his child, and it was within a few days sent away from his house and reared by its maternal grandfather, and never admitted into the family‘of the husband, nor reputed as his child, this is evidence in an inheritance case that the child is illegitimate.
3. Presumption on the subject of legitimacy examined historically and on principle.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette county.
The plaintiff in error was defendant below.
Samuel Page and Mary Shank were married in April, 1817, and in July following, the wife gave birth to Mary, now wife of William Dennison, the present defendant in error. Samuel Page disclaimed being the father of the child, at the time of its birth, and in a few days it was removed to its grandfather’s, and reared by him, and was never recognized by Page as his child. Samuel and Mary Page had other children. Subsequent to the decease of Samuel, these other children commenced proceedings in the Orphans’ Court of Eayette county, for a partition of his real estate. Mary Dennison was not included in the proceedings, and aslced the court to be made a party to the proceedings. This the plaintiffs’ in error objected to, and gave for reason that she was not the legitimate child of Samuel Page, and the Orphans’ Court sent this issue to the Common Pleas, to determine whether the said Mary Dennison was the legitimate child and heir-at-law of the said Samuel Page. On the trial of this issue, the plaintiff in error offered to prove, by Mary Page, widow of Samuel Page, and mother of Mary Dennison, that she, the said Mary Dennison, was begotten by a man by the name of Rist, before her marriage with Samuel Page, and born about three months after said marriage, and that her deceased husband, Samuel Page, was not the father of said Mary Dennison. To this testimony defendant in error objected, and the court, Gilmore, P., sustained the objection, and overruled the evidence; which is the error complained of here, and raises the only point in the case.
Kaine, for plaintiff in error,
referred to 2 Greenleaf’s Ev. 126, sec. 151; King v. Luff, 8 East, 103; 1 Greenleaf’s Ev. sec. 844; Commonwealth v. Shepherd, 6 Bin. 283; Phil. Ev. 113; 2 Kent’s Com. 211, 212; Stetgall v. Stetgall, 2 Brockenbrough, R. 269; Peake’s Cases, 32; Rex v. Bramley, 6 T. R. 330; Bowles v. Bingham, 2 Munford; S. C. 3 Id. 399; 1 Black. Com. 454; Co. Lit. 244, a. Thomas’ Coke, 509: Bishop on Div. 199; 2 Str. 940; 1 Salk. 123; Platt v. Powles, 2 Maule & Sel. 65; 3 P. Wms. 275, 276; 1 Roll. Abr. 338; 5 Ad. & Ellis, 180; 1 Ad. & E., N. C. 444; 10 Law Jour. 97; 4 T. R. 251, 216; 4 Bro. R. 90; Com. Dig. tit. Bastard, A. B.; 1 Simons & Stuart, 150; S. C., 1 Turner & Russell, 138; Cope v. Cope, 1 Moody & Robinson, 269, 274; Goodright v. Moss, 2 Cowp. 591; Banbury Peerage case, 2 Bac. Abr., Bouvier, 82, 1st ed.; Shelford’s Marriage and Div. 707, 723; 4 Petersdorf’s Abr. 170; 3 Paige, 139; 1 Ash. 269; 2 Mylne & Keene, 349; 2 Brock. R. 256; 6 Binn. 286; Nichol’s Law of Adulterine Bastards.
Ewing and Davidson, for defendant in error,
referred to Rex v. Luffe, 8 East, 207; 2 Stark. Ev. 218; 2 Kent, 5th ed. 211, 212, note (b); Lomax v. Holmden, 2 Str. 940; Stetgall v, Stetgall, 2 Brock. 257; Bowles v. Bingham, 2 Munf. 442; 3 Id. 599; Mrs. Gaines’s case, 6 How. 589; 3 Stark. Ev. 1121; Rex v. Reading, Cas. temp. Hard, 79; Rex v. Book, 1 Wils. 340; Sayer, 61; 1 Greenleaf, Ev. § 344; Commonwealth v. Shepherd, 6 Bin. 291; Rex v. Kea, 11 East, 132; 2 Green. Ev. § 151; Banbury Peerage case, 2 Bac. Abr., Bouvier, 82, 1st ed.; Pen drell v. Pendrell, 2 Str. 925; Hargrave and Butler’s notes to Co. Lit. lib. 3, ch. 6, tit. Descents, note 181.
February 14, 1857,

Opinion:
. The opinion of the court was delivered
by Knox, J.,
and will be found in 5 Casey's Beports, 420.