Case Name: Rita IVY, As Next Friend of Andrea Denise Allen, A Minor v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1987-07-22
Citations: 510 So. 2d 520
Docket Number: No. 56800
Parties: Rita IVY, As Next Friend of Andrea Denise Allen, A Minor v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
Judges: WALKER, C.J., and DAN M. LEE, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 510
Pages: 520–530

Head Matter:
Rita IVY, As Next Friend of Andrea Denise Allen, A Minor v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.
No. 56800.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
July 22, 1987.
Roy Noble Lee, P.J., filed concurring opinion in which Dan M. Lee and Sullivan, JJ., joined.
Robertson, J., filed concurring opinion in which Prather, Sullivan and Anderson, JJ., joined, and Dan M. Lee, J., concurred in part.
Bobby D. Robinson, Vicksburg, for appellant.
Wren C. Way, Way & Field, Burkett H. Martin, Ward, Martin & Terry, Vicksburg, for appellee.

Opinion:
HAWKINS, Presiding Justice,
for the court:
Rita Ivy appeals from the decision of the circuit court of Warren County dismissing her claim on behalf of her child Andrea Denise Allen to establish Nathaniel Gibbs as Andrea's natural father so as to entitle Andrea to death benefits under 45 U.S.C. § 59, the Federal Employers Liability Act. Finding no paternity was proven, we affirm.
FACTS
Nathaniel Gibbs was born June 12, 1952, one of eight children of Albert and Willie Mae Gibbs. In July, 1974, Nathaniel began working for the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company (ICG) as a laborer. While employed on his job he was killed July 18, 1979.
Nathaniel never married, and lived with his parents who were at least partially dependent upon him.
On June 15,1981, Mrs. Gibbs, as adminis-tratrix of Nathaniel's estate, in cause number 12,575 of the circuit court of Warren County, filed a declaration under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 59, alleging that she and her husband were his dependents. ICG filed an answer August 14, 1981.
On January 14, 1982, Rita Allen Ivy, as the next friend and mother of Andrea Denise Allen, moved to intervene in the cause, alleging that Andrea, born January 20, 1971, was the natural daughter of Nathaniel.
Mrs. Gibbs objected to the intervention, and in January, 1982, filed two pleadings seeking the court to overrule the motion, alleging Andrea was barred because of Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-19 and 93-9-29, that she was not Nathaniel's child, and further that Nathaniel had never acknowledged Andrea as his child.
In April, 1982, Mrs. Gibbs filed an answer and affirmative defense to the motion to intervene, denying Andrea was Nathaniel's child, and alleging affirmatively that Nathaniel never acknowledged her as his child, that her claim was barred under Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-13, and that Andrea had no claim under this state's wrongful death statute.
On April 28, 1982, the circuit court following a hearing (which is not transcribed in this record), entered a final judgment finding as a fact that Andrea was not Nathaniel's child. The judgment recites that Rita testified she met Nathaniel on or about September 1, 1970, and Andrea was born five months later. The circuit judge, John W. Prewitt, Sr., dismissed the motion to intervene "with prejudice."
Nathaniel's father died March 27, 1983.
On January 18, 1985, Rita filed an original complaint in cause number 13,647 of the Warren County circuit court as mother and next friend of Andrea, seeking benefits under the FELA. ICG answered this complaint, admitting liability for Nathaniel's death, but raising the question: which claimant was entitled to the death benefits. On the same date ICG moved to consolidate this action with # 12,575, initially filed by Mrs. Gibbs. The circuit judge, this time John E. Ellis, sustained this motion, and also ordered that the court would hear evidence and determine which of the plaintiffs was entitled to recover for death benefits.
No doubt the reader — as this Court — is perplexed why any attorney would expect to proceed in the same court, after having his motion to intervene, which asserted the same claim, "dismissed with prejudice."
The answer to this question is not in this record. Rita's brief indicates, however, that after her motion to intervene was dismissed, she filed an action in the United States District Court, which the opposing parties agreed to dismiss, and re-litigate this same issue in the Warren County circuit court.
Rita was born January 3, 1955. At the hearing Rita offered proof that Nathaniel made her pregnant, and that following the birth of Andrea he visited her periodically, gave her cash money every two weeks, and had bought presents for Andrea. She said she was nervous and confused when she testified at the first hearing that her sexual relations with Nathaniel began in September, 1970. Rita married Charles Ivy January 21, 1974, and they separated in 1979.
In defense, Mrs. Gibbs testified Rita was not at Nathaniel's funeral, she never met her, and in fact had never heard of her until she appeared in this proceeding. Nathaniel's family corroborated this.
There was no documentation of any kind supporting Andrea's claim of being Nathaniel's daughter.
Following the hearing the circuit court ruled that Nathaniel never acknowledged that Andrea was his child as required by law, and further there was not sufficient proof that Nathaniel supported her.
LAW
On appeal Rita argues that the circuit judge erred in his ruling that Na thaniel never "acknowledged" Andrea as being his child. She urges we follow Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-3(Z) of the Workers Compensation Act in determining whether Andrea was entitled to benefits under FELA.
There was a misapprehension of the law in the circuit court proceedings which continues unabated on this appeal.
45 U.S.C. § 59 states:
§ 59. Survival of right of action of person injured
Any right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee, and, if none, then of such employee's parents; and, if none, then of the next of kin dependent upon such employee, but in such cases there shall be only one recovery for the same injury.
In interpreting the meaning of "children" under this and similar Federal statutes, the United States Courts have held resort must be had to applicable state law, not any federal statute. Bowen v. New York Cent. R.R. Co., 179 F.Supp. 225 (D.C.Mass.1959); Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 409 F.2d 804 (C.A.La.1969), rehearing denied 413 F.2d 509; Smith v. Clark Sherwood Oil Field Contractors, 457 F.2d 1339 (C.A.La.1972).
We do not agree in interpreting the meaning of the word "children" that we should apply the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 71-3-3(/), even if we did, it would not help Andrea, because there was not one word of proof that she was dependent on Nathaniel at the time of his death, or that Rita ever made any claim on him for support. This section specifically states, "acknowledged illegitimate child dependent on the deceased."
In this state there was no statutory authorization for recovery of damages by an illegitimate child for the death of its father prior to 1981. Miss.Code Ann. § ⅜7-13, our wrongful death statute, until its amendment by Section 6 of Chapter 529, Laws of 1981, made no provision for a claim by an illegitimate child. This statute over the years has consistently provided that if the deceased left no wife the damages would be equally distributed to his children. And in Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 77 Miss. 727, 28 So. 753 (1900), this Court, albeit most reluctantly, held that an illegitimate could not recover under the Act, that children meant legitimate children. The Court noted that under the common law illegitimates were the children of nobody. That Court also noted that except where the inheritance statute specifically and humanely provides, illegitimate children had no right of inheritance.
Prior to 1981 there were certain circumstances whereby an illegitimate could inherit from his natural father. Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 provided that an illegitimate child could inherit from his natural father provided that the father thereafter married its mother and "acknowledged" it as his child. Nichols v. Saul's Estate, 250 Miss. 307, 165 So.2d 352 (1964); Hulitt v. Jones, 220 Miss. 827, 72 So.2d 204 (1954).
Then along came Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 97 S.Ct. 1459, 52 L.Ed.2d 31 (1977), which held an Illinois statute, similar to our Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15, unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause by discriminating against illegitimate children. Thereafter, in Knight v. Moore, 396 So.2d 31 (Miss.1981), we were asked to hold Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 unconstitutional under Trimble. We declined to do so, deciding the case on other grounds.
No doubt in anticipation of the inevitability of Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 eventually being held unconstitutional, the Legislature in 1981 enacted Chapter 529, Laws 1981 amending Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 in pertinent part to this case as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 91-1-15, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows: *
(2) An illegitimate shall inherit from and through the illegitimate's natural father and his kindred, and the natural father of an illegitimate and his kindred shall inherit from and through the illegit imate according to the statutes of descent and distribution if:
#
(c) There has been an adjudication of paternity after the death of the intestate, based upon clear and convincing evidence, in an heirship proceeding under Sections 91-1-27 and 91-1-29. However, no such claim of inheritance shall be recognized unless the action seeking an adjudication of paternity is filed within one (1) year after the death of the intestate or within ninety (90) days after the first publication of notice to creditors to present their claims, whichever is less; and such time period shall run notwithstanding the minority of a child....
In that same enactment, Section 6, Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13 was amended so as to authorize illegitimates to participate in a wrongful death claim. This amended statute carries forward the historical provision that "if the deceased has no husband or wife, the damages shall be equally distributed to the children." It also contains a specific authorization for illegitimates to recover as well as follows:
[T]he provisions of this section shall apply to illegitimate children on account of the death of the natural father and to the natural father on account of the death of the illegitimate child or children, and they shall have all the benefits, rights and remedies conferred by this section on legitimates, if the survivor has or establishes the right to inherit from the deceased under Section 91-1-15.
This same statutory authority to inherit was carried forward in a further amendment of Miss.Code ann. § 91-1-15 by Chapter 339, Laws 1983:
(3) An illegitimate shall inherit from and through the illegitimate's natural father and his kindred, and the natural father of an illegitimate and his kindred shall inherit from and through the illegitimate according to the statutes of descent and distribution if:

(c) There has been an adjudication of paternity after the death of the intestate, based upon clear and convincing evidence, in an heirship proceeding under Sections 91-1-27 and 91-1-29. However, no such claim of inheritance shall be recognized unless the action seeking an adjudication of paternity is filed within one (1) year after the death of the intestate or within ninety (90) days after the first publication of notice to creditors to present their claims, whichever is less; and such time period shall run notwithstanding the minority of a child....
Since Trimble, this Court has had occasion to address the question of inheritance by illegitimates under Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 in the following cases: Miller v. Watson, 467 So.2d 672 (Miss.1985); Berry v. Berry, 463 So.2d 1031 (Miss.1984); Jones by Jones v. Harris, 460 So.2d 120 (Miss.1984); Stevenson v. Daniels, 446 So.2d 597 (Miss.1984); Witt v. Mitchell, 437 So.2d 63 (1983); Knight v. Moore, 396 So.2d 31 (1981).
Our Mississippi Constitution, Article 7, Section 193, dealing with injury and death of a railroad employee, contains this sentence: "Where death ensues from an injury to employees, the legal or personal representatives of the person'injured shall have the same right and remedies as are allowed by law to such representatives of other persons." In Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. v. Washington, 92 Miss. 129, 45 So. 614, we held that this section of the constitution authorized suits not only by an executor or administrator, but also the heirs or next of kin, thus making the procedure for enforcing a railway wrongful death claim the same as a proceding under the wrongful death statute.
We therefore hold that "children" under 45 U.S.C. § 59 means illegitimate children as well as legitimate children, provided paternity is established as required by Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-27 and 91-1-29.
When Rita moved to intervene in the case, Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 had been amended by Ch. 529, Laws 1981. It was incumbent on her to file a petition in the chancery court under Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-27 and proceed under Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-29. The circuit judge should have sustained Mrs. Gibbs's objection to the intervention on the ground these statutes had not been followed. Apparently, the circuit judge heard the motion on the merits and dismissed it "with prejudice," because Rita's testimony made it biologically impossible for Nathaniel to have been the father. Manifestly, looking solely on the merits he was correct in dismissing the proposed intervention because there was no "clear and convincing evidencé" Nathaniel was the natural father as required by paragraph (2)(c) of the Act. Indeed, the "clear and convincing evidence" was that Andrea was not Nathaniel's child.
When Rita filed her complaint on January 18, 1985, Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 had again been amended by Ch. 339, Laws 1983, but insofar as the procedure for establishing Andrea as Nathaniel's nature child, the proceedings were the same. Under the amended statute it is still a prerequisite to file a petition in the chancery court under Miss.Code Ann. § 91 — 1— 27, and hold proceedings as required under Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-29 before any claim can be asserted in circuit court. We note in this connection that Mrs. Gibbs filed suit as administratrix of Nathaniel's estate. The record does not reveal what claim, if any, Rita asserted on behalf of Andrea in the estate proceedings. In any event, the circuit judge in 1985 should not have heard this matter since Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-27 and 91-1-29 had not been substantially followed. But, by agreement of the parties, the circuit judge heard the issue of paternity on the merits. We will not reverse this case because the wrong court decided the issue, Article 6, Section 147, Mississippi Constitution.
On the merits the circuit judge also erred by considering that an "acknowledgment" by Nathaniel that Andrea was his child was the statutory prerequisite to Andrea having a valid claim. Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-15 as amended, removes any such requirement. No doubt an open acknowl-edgement by a putative father that a child is his natural child has great bearing in determining the factual issue, but there is now no statutory requirement that he do so in order for a child to establish its right to inherit.
Aside from this, however, the circuit judge was manifestly correct by ruling that Rita failed to meet the burden of proof to sustain Andrea's claim she was Nathaniel's natural daughter. Not only did she fail to present clear and convincing evidence of such paternity, the evidence and circumstances heavily preponderate to the contrary.
Although it is now well settled under the United States Constitution, statutory law and decisions of this Court that an illegitimate child has a right to inherit in her father's wrongful death claim under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-13 (Supp.1985) and 45 U.S.C. § 59, such claim must be asserted and established by clear and convincing evidence under Miss.Code Ann. § 91-1-27 and 91-1-29.
Andrea has no lawful claim under 45 U.S.C. § 59, and the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WALKER, C.J., and DAN M. LEE, ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and DAN M. LEE and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur in part by separate written opinion.
ROBERTSON, PRATHER, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur by separate written opinion, with DAN M. LEE, J., concurring in part III only.