Court Opinion

ID: 9587252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:20:02.716386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:42.411224
License: Public Domain

Duckworth, Chief Justice,
dissenting. Since the majority rules that whether the persons here involved are children as that term is used in the trust instrument, should be determined by the law of Georgia and not the law of Louisiana, and since for the purpose of the decision it is conceded that they were the issue of a bigamous marriage, I shall so treat the case for the purpose of this dissent without intimating an agreement with those positions. No benefit could result to either side by a discussion of those matters in this dissent. Therefore, I dissent from the opinion and to théljudgment based thereon and now proceed to state the reasons tor my dissent.
The relevant portion of Code § 53-104 is as follows: “Marriages of persons unable to contract . . . shall be void. The issue of such marriages, before they are annulled and declared void by a competent court, shall be legitimate.” Among the grounds that render a person unable to contract marriage is “previous marriage undissolved.” Code Ann. § 53-102 (1) (Ga. L. 1957, p. 83). It is also declared in the same paragraph of the above Code section, as amended, that “Nothing herein shall be construed to affect the legitimacy of children.” In Mims v. State, 43 Ga. App. 100 (157 SE 901), it was said that, “The fact that the marriage was void for the reason that the defendant was unable to enter into such a contract, because of his tender years (sixteen), did not render the child illegitimate, the marriage not having been annulled and declared void by a competent court.” Code § 74-101 declares that: “All children born in wedlock, or within the period of gestation thereafter, are legitimate.” The early case of Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407, supra, *546involved a claim of a child, the issue of a bigamous marriage, to the right to inherit from a child which was the issue of a valid marriage of one of its parents, and this court upheld its claim. The bigamous marriage there involved occurred in North Carolina. This court said in headnote 3 thereof: “That, upon common law principles, which are presumed to prevail in North Carolina as in Georgia, the second marriage was not absolutely void, nor the issue of the same illegitimate; but that the issue were legitimate, and capable, under the laws of Georgia, of inheriting from their half brother, a son of their father by a former marriage.” This is a pat ruling, binding upon this court to the effect that such children are fully invested with complete rights of inheritance. Another paragraph of that opinion at page 416 vividly expresses the thought that the object of this law is to shield and protect the helpless innocent child against any stigma or lack of a right to inherit, and I believe it may, with profit, be repeated here. It is: “Surely, when in Georgia the issue of such second marriage of Elizabeth Eubanks, had they been bom on the soil of Georgia, though the marriage was in North Carolina, would not be held by our Courts as illegitimate, but would be protected from such a stigma, as also from deprivation of rights of inheritance. . .”
In Campbell v. Allen, 208 Ga. 274 (66 SE2d 226), it was held that a child which was the issue of a bigamous common-law marriage before it was decreed to be void by a court was legitimate and was a lawful heir of its father. My dissent in that case was upon the ground that I believed common law marriages were not embraced in Code § 53-104. In Connor v. Rainwater, 200 Ga. 866 (38 SE2d 805), we cited Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407, supra, and Perkins v. Levy, 158 Ga. 896, supra, to support our ruling that the child of a bigamous marriage before it was decreed void and before a prosecution for bigamy was legitimate. In Irving v. Irving, 152 Ga. 174 (108 SE 540, 18 ALR 88), with only five Justices participating, and overlooking Eubanks v. Banks, it was held that the issue of a bigamous marriage was not legitimate, but in Perkins v. Levy, that case was distinguished and it was held by a full bench that such children born before the voidable marriage was decreed by a *547court to be void were legitimate. To the same effect see Griffin v. Booth, 176 Ga. 1 (4), supra.
I am unable to understand how the majority can read the law above cited and then hold in this case that the issue of the bigamous marriage, which was not declared void by any court, must bear the stigma of illegitimacy, and suffer a loss of the benefits conferred by their grandfather by the trust instrument upon the children of their father. By this one stroke is swept away the sole humane purpose of the law in making them legitimate. In order to accomplish this cruel and inhumane result the majority purport to construe the unambiguous words “children” and “legitimate” as they appear in the instrument and the law respectively, and in doing so violate the positive rulings of this court in Neal v. Moultrie, 12 Ga. 104; Aldridge v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 203 Ga. 285 (46 SE2d 578); Bibb County v. Hancock, 211 Ga. 429 (86 SE2d 511); Burnam v. Wilkerson, 217 Ga. 657 (124 SE2d 389).
I do not believe the reasons given by the majority for that ruling will stand up when put to the acid test of full analysis. First they cite Hicks v. Smith, 94 Ga. 809, supra. That case involved a bastard; the present case does not, but on the contrary involves legitimate children. This alone shows the inapplicability of that case here. There the illegitimate child had been legitimatized by court order under a provision of law authorizing such procedure. And it was held that the absence of legitimacy from birth deprived the child of the natural right to inherit, but its right to inherit from its father alone arose solely in virtue of the court order oh his petition to legitimatize it. There, this court at page 814 said: “The purpose of this act [the act under which the court procedure was taken], as expressed in its title, was to ‘prescribe the manner in which persons born illegitimate should be made legitimate.’ In the legislative mind was this purpose. It had the power to confer upon such a child in the act of legitimation all of the attributes, including inheritable blood, of a perfect son born in lawful wedlock; it had the power to purge his blood of all impurity, and, despite the strictest rule which ever prevailed under the ancient feudal system, make him eligible to the succession. The whole *548subject, as to how far and to what extent it would confer inheritable blood was within the scope of legislative power. One word without qualification was sufficient to give him this status, and that one word, without more, ‘legitimate’.” (Italics mine). That opinion goes on to say that had the act empowered the court to declare him legitimate, this would have conferred upon him the right to inherit from his father, and “through his reputed father to take by descent from ancestors on the paternal line.” But since the act went further to say “and capable of inheriting from his father” this placed a limitation upon the unrestricted right of inheritance which the word “legitimate” standing alone would confer. Thus is demonstrated that this case not only utterly fails to support but definitely and plainly contradicts the majority ruling.
The other reason given by the majority is likewise demonstrably fallacious. They say that the provision in the trust instrument for the widow of the son to take if he has no living children, in some mysterious way, indicates that the grandfather meant by the word “children” only children born in lawful wedlock. In the first place the two words “children” and “widow” are utterly unrelated in meaning and hence each stands on its own meaning independently of the other. Each describes different persons who might take. Certainly it will not be contended that the children referred to must be the children of the widow referred to? In fact the son had two children by his divorced wife and they certainly are unrelated to any widow he might have, but they are without dispute included in the word “children.” Had he lawfully married after the birth of the children here involved and that wife survived him, she would have been the widow referred to, but she would have been wholly unrelated by blood to any of his children. Besides we are witnessing the acceptance at its full meaning of the word “widow,” and a refusal at the same time to accept at its full meaning the word “children,” neither of which is ambiguous. Then the word children is made to exclude a part of its meaning by the use of the word widow. When these completely invalid grounds upon which the majority place their ruling are thus exposed as being rank fallacy, their ruling stands without sup*549port and in open contradiction to the law and facts that should control. When Code § 53-104 made these children legitimate, it thereby invested them with all the rights of children, including the unqualified right to inheritance through their father from his father. I am saddened to witness the failure to follow plain law and facts with the result that innocent people must bear the stigma which the law sought to relieve them from, and lose rights which the law and facts show them entitled to.
In Aldridge v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 203 Ga. 285, supra, the law (Code § 92-5712) providing for release of property under lien from tax liens did not limit the word “property,” but it was contended that it should be construed to include only real property because in providing that the lien holder should be allowed to pay the taxes assessed against any one or more pieces of such property, the law included only real property. In rejecting the contention it was said: “We are bound, therefore, to construe the statute here involved as referring to both real and personal property wherever the word 'property’ appears, unless a different meaning is apparent from the context. Examining closely the entire language of the statute, we find nothing to authorize any limitation of the meaning of property as there used to only real property. There is nothing confusing, uncertain, or ambiguous in the language. . . The argument that 'other pieces of property’ must necessarily refer to real estate alone cannot be upheld without writing into the statute something that was not put there by the legislature and which is not 'apparent from the context.’ ” Consistent with that ruling, I contend that in the present case the word “children” not having been by the trust instrument limited to some class of children, should not be so limited by this court, but it must be taken to include all of “his children.”
In Hungerford v. Trust Co. of Ga., 190 Ga. 387 (9 SE2d 630), we had a will to construe, and although the will conditioned the bequest upon the fact that the named beneficiaries “are living with their present wives at the time of my death,” it was contended that the purpose and intent in fixing this condition was to guard against her son-in-law’s receiving it in case he separated from or divorced her daughter. There is a *550strong likelihood that the purpose contended for was in the mind of the testatrix, and it would have been justified on the basis of right and humanity. But this court rejected the contention upon the ground that the intent was plainly expressed in the will and that this court was bound thereby, and constructions to the contrary must be rejected. In that opinion we fully recognized the rule requiring discovery and effectuation of the intent, but with equal finality we held that this intent must be first looked for in the will and when found to be clearly expressed therein it was not permissible to receive aliunde evidence as to intent, or to change the provision of the will under the pretense of construction. Ample controlling authority was therein cited to support our ruling. We said the insistence for a construction not authorized was an attempt to get the court to rewrite the will. And it was there said: “If such had been the intention, it could have been so stated in lieu of the language employed, which is not susceptible of any such construction. Again we say it is no proper function of courts to write wills, or to change the plain language of the will by construction.” It is noted that the rulings in that case upheld the contentions therefor made by the same law firm that represents the defendants in error here, and they now seek a contrary ruling which they can do with propriety, but this court should not violate its ruling there.
The legitimate children here involved can not be excluded from the trust instrument by any unwarranted consideration of Code §§ 74-101, 74-103, 74-201, and 26-5603, when Code § 53-104 definitely and conclusively makes them the legitimate children who are included in the words “his children” found in the instrument.
There is no conflict in Code §§ 53-104 and 74-201. The former makes children who are the issue of a bigamous marriage before it is declared void by a court legitimate, although the mother is guilty of adultery. The latter merely provides that in the absence of such bigamous marriage if the mother conceives a child by committing adultery with a man to whom she is not married, the child is a bastard. The specific and significant distinction is marriage though bigamous for it under 53-104 renders a child *551legitimate, while its absence under 74-201 renders the child a bastard. But if this plain distinction leaves doubters, a further controlling law compels its acceptance. Full bench decisions of this court are binding upon every Justice. A bastard cannot inherit from its father or through him. In Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407, Perkins v. Levy, 158 Ga. 896, and Griffin v. Booth, 176 Ga. 1, with all the Justices concurring it was held that the child of a bigamous marriage before it was dissolved was legitimate and capable of inheriting from its father. In those cases the two Code sections must have been considered, and they constitute binding authority to the effect that 74-201 in no degree alters 53-104.
The extended discussion of 74-201 by the majority demonstrates a lack of recognition of the rule. Code § 53-104 is unambiguous and unequivocally makes these children the legitimate children of Charles Hilary King, and makes them his children in blood. Hicks v. Smith, 94 Ga. 809, supra; Eubanks v. Banks, 34 Ga. 407, supra; and Perkins v. Levy, 158 Ga. 896, supra. To exclude these children according to law, this court would have to do the impossible of finding that the word “children” as used in the instrument contained within it definite exclusions. What the maker said speaks louder than any secret thought he might have had, and the only way this court can be definitely sure it is giving effect to his intention, is to effectuate what he plainly said. Any other course is purely speculative, without support in fact, and contrary to law.
All the argument of counsel about the sinful conduct of the parents, and implying thereby that this should be visited upon the innocent children, manifests a woeful misconception of the purpose of Code § 53-104, for its sole purpose is to protect such children against stigma or loss of rights because of the sins of their parents.
I have presented the foregoing arguments to my Associates as forcefully as I could but to no avail. I feel that my Associates, though acting in perfectly good faith, have nevertheless unconsciously substituted their individual notions of what ought to be for what the law and facts actually are. The basic error of the majority stems from a total misconception of the court’s *552duty in dealing with the word “children” as used in the instrument. By law this court is bound to allow anyone whom the word includes to come within that word. Finally I would urge a reading of Beall v. Beall, 8 Ga. 210, supra, for an impressive presentation of the proper course for this court in this case, and as a reminder of the virtue of proper judicial self-restraint by confining itself to its constitutionally assigned function of construing and applying the law, and avoidance of usurpation of legislative functions by enacting or amending laws under the guise of construction, when construction is neither necessary nor permissible.