16 So. 2d 163 | Fla. | 1944
The only question presented by this appeal is the legitimacy vel non of an infant child.
Appellant and appellee first met on June 22, 1941. A courtship followed with frequent acts of sexual intercourse. They were married July 16, 1941. The child was born February 9, 1942, a period of about 226 days from their first meeting.
The appellant husband claims he is not the father of the child. Where a child is born in wedlock the law extends the right to the reputed father to contest the parentage but the mother has no such right. She being restricted, to question the identity of the child only. Gossett v. Ullendorff,
There is authority that the presumption is weakened in cases where it is shown that the child was born in wedlock but conceived prior thereto. Wright v. Hicks,
That brings us then to the question of whether there was sufficient proof to sustain the appellant's contention when weighed by these principles of law. The judgment appealed from is presumed to be proper hence the evidence in support thereof is viewed in its most favorable light. The evidence shows that appellant engaged in frequent acts of sexual intercourse with the mother from June 24th until their marriage on July 16th following. The medical testimony disclosed that the normal period of gestation is 280 days; that after 190 days a child has a fair chance to live.
When the evidence is considered in its entirety we are *876 unable to say that the chancellor committed error in the conclusion reached.
The judgment is affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL and CHAPMAN, JJ., concur.