All persons are illegitimate who are both begotten and born out of lawful wedlock. If begotten before wedlock, and born an hour after, they are legitimate at common law. By the statutes of most of our States, (i) following the doctrine of the Roman civil law, and of most of the nations of Europe, a subsequent marriage of the parents legitimates such children. (j)

(b) See United States v. Bainbridge, 1 Mason, 71.

(c) Parke, B., Newry & Enniskillen Railway Co. v. Coombe, 3 Exch. 569.

(d) Leeds & Thirsk Railway Co. v. Fearnley, 4 Exch. 26; Cork & Bandon Railway Co. v. Cazenove, 10 Q. B. 935; s. c. 11 Jur. 802.

(e) Dublin & Wicklow Railway Co. v. Black, 16 E. L. & E. 556; s. c. 8 Exch. 181.

(f) Birkenhead, Lancashire, & Cheshire Railway Co. v. Pilcher, 5 Exch. 121.

(g) Newry & Ennskillen Railway Co. v. Coombe, 3 Exch. 565.

(h) Northwestern Railway Co. p. Mc-Michael, 5 Exch. 128.

In England the common law conclusively presumed every child to be legitimate, if the parents were married and within the realm, when the child might have been begotten, and the husband not proved to be impotent. (k) Now, however, there as well as here, it is a question for the jury; but the presumption in favor of legitimacy can be overthrown only by clear proof. (l) It has been held in England that the evidence of the husband is not admis-sible to prove his access to his wife; (m) and in this country, that the evidence of the wife is not admissible to prove his non-access. (n) At common law bastards have no inheritable blood; but in nearly all of our States they inherit from their mothers, and their mothers inherit from them, under various qualifications. In England, and generally in this country, the putative father is chargeable, by statute provisions (and by them ouly), for the support of his illegitimate child.

In England, Courts of Equity have, in some cases, been very much disposed to favor bastards, in the consideration of settlements or devises in relation to them; (p) and in other cases have been extremely severe. (q) In this country, the courts have generally been liberal towards them. (r) But while a devise in favor of an expected (and then begotten) illegitimate child has been held valid, (s) a settlement in favor of future illegitimate

(i) This is so in California, Dakota, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington. And if the father acknowledges the child as his in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Statutes of legitimation are valid, Beall v. Beall, 8 Ga. 210; and to be construed favorably, Swanson v. Swanson, 2 Swan, 446. But see Edmondson v. Dyson, 7 Ga. 512.

(i) Code Civil, No. 331; 2 Domat, 361; 1 Ersk. Inst. 116; Butler's note (181), to Co Lit. It was in reply to an attempt of the English Bishops to introduce this rule of the civil (and canon) law into England, that the Lords made their famous answer, "Nolumus leges Anghae mutari."

(k) 1 Roil Abr. 358; Co. Lit. 244 a.

(l) Pendrell v. Pendrell, Stra. 925; Cross v. Cross, 3 Paige, 139; Commonwealth v. Wentz, 1 Ashm. 269, Commonwealth v. Shepherd, 6 Binn. 286, Stegall v. Stegall, 2 Brock. 256; Bury v. Phillpot, 2 Myl. & K. 349; Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. 550, 589; Plowes v. Bossey, 31 L. J. Ch. 680; Hargrove v. Hargrove, 9 Beav. 255; Illinois Loan Co. v. Bonner, 75 Ill. 315. The presumption of law seems to be less in Van Aernam v. Van Aernam, 1 Barb Ch. 375. But see Caujolle v. Ferrie', 23 N. Y. (9 Smith), 90.

(m) Patchett v. Holgate, 3 E. L. & E. 100.

(n) People v. The Overseers, 15 Barb. 286; Parker v. Way, 15 N. H. 45.

(p) Annandale v. Harris, 2 P. Wms. 432.

(g) Prec. Ch. 475; 1 Eq. Cas. Abr. 123; Gilb. Eq. 139.

(r) Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 338; Harten v. Gibson, 4 Desaus. 139

(s) Pratt v. Flamer, 4 Har & J 10.

children was held void. (t) * It has been held in Eng- land that bastards cannot marry within the prohibited degrees. (u)

The rights of the mother to the custody of the child have been maintained against the putative father. (v)

(t) Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, N. Y. Leg. Obs. 191.

(u) Haines v. Jeffell, 1 Ld. Raym. 68.

(v) Robalina v Armstrong, IS Barb.

247; Nine v. Starr, 8 Ore. 49; Pote's Appeal, 106 Pa. 574.