Dilworth v. Dilworth

⁵⁹⁰ Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from- a decree of the Circuit Court for Washington County dismissing a hill filed by the appellants for an injunction to restrain certain proceedings for the sale •of the real estate of Stephen O. Dilworth, late of Washington County, deceased, and for a decree declaring that the appellant, William. H. Dilworth, is the true and lawful owner of fhe property in question, and that the appellees have no right, title or. claim thereto. The record is a.voluminous one, but a large part of the testimony is entirely irrelevant, and not material to a proper •consideration of the legal questions presented for our determination.

The contention on the part of the appellant is that he is-the only child and heir at law of Stephen O. Dilworth, who •died intestate in October, 1913, and that, as such, the property descended and vested in him in fee upon the death of his father in 1913, and that he has been in sole possession of the property, as owner, since that date. As opposed to this contention, it is urged on the part of the appellees that the decedent died intestate, without lawful children, and that they as brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces of the deceased, are entitled to his property and estate. ' The material facts bearing upon the case and disclosed by the record are these: Stephen O. Dilworth and Margaret Shepherd were married June 19th, 1872. The appellant, William H. Dilworth, was born October 15th, 1865, nearly seven years before their marriage, and consequently born out of lawful wedlock. The proof shows that both before and after the marriage the father acknowledged the appellant as his child, and he was raised and treated in the family as their legitimate offspring.

The appellant’s cliam to inherit from his father and his title to the property is based upon Section 29 of Article 46 of.the Code of Public General Laws, and the controlling question here presented is whether the appellant comes within ⁵⁹¹ tiie terms of the Act. The statute provides, as follows, that if any man shall have a child or children hy any woman whom he shall afterwards marry, such child or children, if acknowledged hy the man, shall in virtue of such marriage and acknowledgment, he hereby legitimated and capable in law to inherit and transmit inheritance as if born in wedlock. The main purpose find intent of the statute, as said by this Court in Hawbecker v. Hawbecker, 43 Md. 516 , was to remove the taint and disabilities of bastardy from the unoffending children whenever their parents did marry, without regard to the deepness of guilt on the part of their parents-in which they were conceived and horn. It was further said in that case the right of inheritance was given upon the' principle, that it is unjust to punish the offspring for the crime of the parents.

The Legislature has not seen fit to make any exception to its operation. Its terms embrace every case where “any man shall have a