Opinion ID: 1770284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the heirship of anna belle burnett

Text: Did the court err in excluding evidence that Pearl Lee Curtis was not the daughter of Earl Burnett? Pearl Lee Curtis' birth certificate indicates that she was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Elizabeth Fisher on June 11, 1925, while Elizabeth was still married to Granville Barnett, a/k/a Earl Burnett. Georgie B. Dixon offered the depositions of four witnesses and two affidavits that after the separation of Earl Burnett and Elizabeth  Fisher, Burnett lived in Arkansas and did not visit with his wife, Elizabeth Fisher, during the time that Pearl Lee Curtis was conceived. Assuming without deciding that Georgie B. Dixon had standing to question the legitimacy of Pearl Lee Curtis, as to which, see Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1948), we think the chancellor's action in excluding the offered testimony was correct. The presumption that a child born in wedlock is a legitimate child is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law, Krohn v. Migues, 274 So.2d 654 (Miss. 1973), and may be rebutted only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband is not the father. Stone v. Stone, 210 So.2d 672 (Miss. 1968). After fifty years the frail memorials of human memory will rarely be accepted to rebut the presumption of legitimacy arising from documented records of marriage and birth certificate. We have carefully considered the other arguments raised by Georgie B. Dixon and we find no reversible error. From our study of the case, we find no basis upon which to hold that the chancellor did not reach a correct result. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON and INZER, P. JJ., and SMITH, ROBERTSON, SUGG, WALKER, BROOM and LEE, JJ., concur.