{
  "id": 1624196,
  "name": "Mark Byron CHRISTMAN v. Susan Cross JONES, Administratrix",
  "name_abbreviation": "Christman v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1973-07-16",
  "docket_number": "73-39",
  "first_page": "936",
  "last_page": "938",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 Ark. 936"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "497 S.W.2d 14"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 301,
    "char_count": 4092,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47052415024968636
    },
    "sha256": "e28ba3e31bd1e0259d8183d049fc60ca525529e7acc70f716d2d80b5c2523d26",
    "simhash": "1:3e97a2077c1e0567",
    "word_count": 702
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:26:13.512056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mark Byron CHRISTMAN v. Susan Cross JONES, Administratrix"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellant, Mark Byron Christman, now 23 years old, was born out of wedlock. His father, Ernest Byron Cross, died intestate in Saline county in January, 1972. Mark filed the present petition in the probate court, asking that he be declared to be the decedent\u2019s legitimate son and heir. The present statute, and an earlier one to the same effect, provide that Mark is to be deemed and considered legitimate if he makes the threefold showing (a) that Ernest was in fact his father, (b) that after Mark\u2019s birth Ernest married Mark\u2019s mother, and (c) that Ernest recognized Mark as being his child. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 61-141 (b) (Repl. 1971); Pope\u2019s Digest (1937), \u00a7 4341.\nThe probate judge found, upon proof that is practically undisputed, that conditions (a) and (b) had been proved. The court denied the petition, however, on the ground that the evidence did not show that Ernest had recognized Mark as his son. The only question on appeal is whether the court\u2019s conclusion upon point (c) is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. We are unanimously of the opinion that it is.\nMark\u2019s birth certificate shows that he was born in Pulaski County on February 24, 1950. According to the certificate, Mark\u2019s father was Ernest Byron Cross (the decedent), and his mother was Verna Juanita Vondran (now Verna Juantia Christman). Ernest was married to another woman at the time, but he was living with Mark\u2019s mother. Ernest obtained a divorce and thereafter married Mark\u2019s mother on March 19, 1952. That marriage was terminated by a divorce which Ernest obtained in Pulaski county on April 6, 1953. After that divorce Mark did not see his father until about three years before Ernest\u2019s death.\nMark\u2019s mother testified that Ernest paid the medical and hospital bills incident to Mark\u2019s birth. She states that Ernest saw the birth certificate many times and never objected to it or denied that Mark was his son. Another witness, Mamie Vondran, knew Ernest when Mark was born and testified that Ernest always told her that Mark was his son.\nIn addition to the proof that Ernest recognized Mark as his son during the interval between Mark\u2019s birth in 1950 and Ernest\u2019s divorce from Mark\u2019s mother in 1953, there is convincing testimony that Ernest also recognized Mark as his son during the last few years of Ernest\u2019s life. Ernest was then living in Little Rock. Mark moved to Little Rock in 1969 and, at his mother\u2019s suggestion, telephoned his father. According to Mark, he lived with his father from time to time and was introduced by Ernest as his son. That testimony is corroborated by two disinterested witnesses who worked with Ernest at the Employment Security office and who testified that Ernest referred to Mark as \u201cmy boy\u201d and as \u201cmy son.\u201d On the other hand, Ernest\u2019s widow (his third wife) testified that Ernest definitely stated that Mark was not his son, but she is pecuniarily interested in- the estate and has filed , a brief in this court in support of the probate court\u2019s judgment.\nThe trial judge, in announcing his decision at the close of the case, placed his sole emphasis upon a sworn questionnaire filed by Ernest in the Pulaski chancery court when he divorced Mark\u2019s mother in 1953. In that questionnaire \u2014 a printed form apparently required by rule of court \u2014 Ernest stated that no children were born \u201cof this union.\u201d That statement was actually true, since Mark was not born during the marriage. Moreover, in the same proceeding Mark\u2019s mother wrote to the attorney ad litem and said in her letter: \u201cWould you tell me if Ernest wants to support our child [or] has he not told you that we have a three year old son.\u201d Upon the proof as a whole we are convinced that Ernest, upon a number of occasions, acknowledged Mark to be his son, as he certainly was.\nReversed,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert D. Smith Jr. and Robert D. Smith III, for appellant.",
      "Charles Mott Jr., for appellee.",
      "Howell, Price, Howell \u00e9r Barron, for Amicus Curiae, Marie Cross, widow."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mark Byron CHRISTMAN v. Susan Cross JONES, Administratrix\n73-39\n497 S.W. 2d 14\nOpinion delivered July 16, 1973\nRobert D. Smith Jr. and Robert D. Smith III, for appellant.\nCharles Mott Jr., for appellee.\nHowell, Price, Howell \u00e9r Barron, for Amicus Curiae, Marie Cross, widow."
  },
  "file_name": "0936-01",
  "first_page_order": 958,
  "last_page_order": 960
}