TEMPLEMAN v. BRUNER

TEMPLEMAN v. BRUNER
1914 OK 47
139 P. 993
42 Okla. 6
Case Number: 3322
Decided: 01/19/1914
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

TEMPLEMAN
v.
BRUNER et al.

Syllabus

Error from District Court, Hughes County; John Caruthers, Judge.

Action by Walter E. Templeman against Janetta Bruner and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. On rehearing. Petition denied.

GALBRAITH, C.

¶1 It is insisted that the court was in error in the conclusion announced in the original opinion filed herein. On account of the earnestness, zeal, and diligence of counsel in presenting their contention, we have again gone over this case carefully.

¶2 It is urged that since the Supreme Court of California, in Blythe v. Ayres, 96 Cal. 532,

¶3 The diligent research of counsel has failed to call to our attention a single case exactly in point sustaining their contention. Their argument overlooks the pertinent fact, pointed out by the Supreme Court of South Dakota in Calhoun v. Bryant, supra, that the devolution of property is not a natural right growing out of the relation of parent and child, but is a matter governed entirely by statute. The court said:

"The right of inheritance does not grow out of the relationship of parent and child, though it may be created and conferred in the exercise of legislative wisdom, because of the existence of that relationship. But the right of inheritance is not a necessary incident of the relationship, whether natural or adopted."

¶4 It was said by Judge Coffey, who presided in the trial of the Blythe case:

"The whole question of devolution of property rights depends upon statutory enactments, and there is no natural right in the premises. Plaintiff claims, primarily, under section 230, Civil Code, which requires the institution of heir or adoption to be made by the father. It must be the father. The institution of heir is the primary object of the statute. The succession of property rights is incidental; it is a status that is involved; it is the relation of the child to society." (4 Coffey Probate Dec. 139.)

¶5 The Supreme Court of California said in this Blythe case on appeal, quoting from Barr on International Law:

"Legitimation of bastards, either by subsequent marriage or by an act of the government (rescriptum principis), is nothing but a legal equalization of certain children illegitimately begotten with legitimate children. In other words, the object and effect of section 230 is to change the status and capacity of an illegitimate child to the status and capacity of a child born in lawful wedlock." (96 Cal. 532,

¶6 We take it that these authorities sustain the conclusion announced in the original opinion filed herein, namely, that the effect of the legitimation of Edmond Sewell was to change his status from a bastard to a legitimate child, so far as society and his father were concerned, but did not affect his status as between himself and his mother. It is true that in Allison v. Bryan,

¶7 We are constrained to adhere to the former holding in this case, and therefore recommend that the petition for rehearing be denied.

¶8 By the Court: It is so ordered.