Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Willis
182 S.E.2d 420
Ga.
1971
Check Treatment

*1 mons, did not the name and and said summons address attorney plaintiff’s plaintiff’s or address. Ga. 81A-301). (b) 609, 610 and 671 81A-104 §§ compliance this case was not substantial with the requirements respecting of the Civil Practice Act form and its days in since it did not allow the defendant 30 which to file his answer, quash motion of the defendant the summons have been should sustained.

Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. May Argued 1971. March 1971 Decided Roy Leite, Jr., appellant. J. for Hayes, appellee.

Mose S. for 26401. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

v. WILLIS. curiam. This on certiorari from the Court of Per 688)), App. Ga. is controlled 915), Cooper Prudential v. Mel Ga. vin, Cheek, and Foster v. reversal of the deci Appeals. sion of the Court of See also Kenney, 240 U. S. 489 and De concur, Judgment reversed. All the Justices Felton and Hawes, JJ., who dissent.

Argued April May 1971 Decided Lavender, Cunningham, Cunning- Lavender & Woodrow Fred Jr., ham, Gowen, Jenkins, King Spalding, & Charles L. A. Felton Hayes, Joseph appellant. B. Leverett, Leverett, appellee. &

Heard E. Freeman Justice, dissenting. granted Felton, This court 688)), to determine whether "child or children” meaning of the term 79 Stat. clause of according to state (1965), be determined must 38 USCA depth, great as question in investigated the I have federal law. *2 parties, and have con filed both splendid briefs sisted federal law under be construed under the term should cluded that the United States Constitu supremacy terms of of the the terms Dobyns v. Pruden Georgia It that law. follows tion and not under (179 Melvin, 915), Cooper v. 223 Co., 227 253 tial Ins. (96 (154 Cheek, 212 Ga. 821 Foster v. Ga. 239 545), controlling and should be over in this case are not applies. An law that hold that ruled to the extent question in this case comes insight answer to the into the in Labine of the United States of the the decision 29, 288), Vincent, SC, on March LE2d 28 v. 401 law, denying 1971), that the Louisiana wherein the court held father, intestate illegitimate child to inherit from his right of an of the equal protection due clauses did not violate the thing as to court held the same Constitution. This United States 549). Frazier, 438 v. 226 Ga. Georgia law Pettiford law to whether there was no In those cases congressional policy which with applied conflicted 63, Corp., 384 U. S. American Petroleum state law. Wallis v. Pan 369). 1304, The United States 68 SC know, relationship unanimously that insofar as has government governed is to be and the between a serviceman Co., law, law. United v. Standard Oil not state 1604, In v. Wiss 91 LE Wissner 305 SC 332 U. S. 424), ner, the deceased had des SC beneficiary policy of under a ignated mother as a his Act of 1940. pursuant to the National Service death, part under widow claimed a Upon his his held for the community property law. The court the California effect, given mother, law could not be declaring that the state affording Congressional method stating that the Act was system life insurance for members comprehensive In Wood of the United States. the armed forces and veterans of 806), States, 95 LE SC ward v. United adopted court held that an brother could take as regard without state law. In United States Zazove, 1601), S. v. 334 U. the court legislative expression that such an insurance "is an statute agreement intent rather of an than embodiment between Con- person. Congress, gress Only and the the intent insured insurer, in this case is the need be ascertained fix the terms; layman understanding holder does not have the relevance here that the con- Oregon, of a struction commercial contract.” United States LE2d it was held that a statute, providing the estate veteran died hospital the veteran’s vested in United States was Oregon providing would his es- Davenport cheat to the state. "However, right granted

held: where state law conflicts with the by Congress to a serviceman to name the first a bene- instance *3 ficiary XII, choosing, yield. of his own state law must Art. Const. I, §2-8001); Gainey Thomasville, Sec. Par. v. Bank of 877); O’Malley Wilson, SE 109).” fact, employees’ in SE the definitions policies congressionally the authorized insurance contain same children,” provisions as to the of "child or not does neces- sarily an mean that the same terms in armed serviceman’s insur- ance mean the same. as We have has, policies are that armed servicemen’s construed only authority against point law. The blank state what we here supra. rule is v. Prudential Our rul- Ins. ing applies in in that case should be overruled because federal law employee’s policy, a of the rule in as such instead by any we held. While we are not bound federal cases Court, in Supreme those from the where there is a lower conflict federal court decisions as to whether takes under "child,” deny term case which to the to an ille- a refused controlling in gitimate should followed this court as be holding, absence Court decision so where Su- Metropolitan a Court denied case. (CA3d However, Su- Thompson, 368 F2d 791 Co. v. involving apply cases ser- preme Court decisions policies above. vicemen’s shown insurance majority not opinion are cited Kenney, 240 questions. Federal on authority proposition for which supra, is not of the United States is cited. There court, Employers’ Liability in de- construing Act. The Federal applica- ciding Act was to have whether the intended states, do so that it did not so intend because to all uniformity Congress create on one the intent to would attribute to many uniformity to "producing discord and want the law in this Every consideration of involved others.” reasonable uniformity unquestioned provide points intention to case to an Sylva among all of the of the Union. De applicable supra, the facts in this case. That to simply case that the should inherit lived, depended parties upon the law of the where traditionally matter left to state law in matters where there is overriding purpose congressional to make a federal law uniform Thompson, Metropolitan Life F2d all states. In Ins. Co. v. 794, supra, reasoning would be the court said: "Whether the same employed today author’s to exclude New York speculation. copyright renewal does not our appropriate may however to follow state of inheri- For laws essentially passing problem tance where one of accumulated succeeding generations, think it to wealth to reasonable infer Congress term here that intended the distribution of provide a substitute income that lost source óf Therefore, De involved the insured’s death. purposes different does not control the resolu- different Act with *4 (Emphasis present problem tion of construction.” of supplied.) Thompson was the Su- denied going If court to wait Court of the United States. is grants and until a certiorari expressly contending that what am is correct rules decision, long ques- express it time before the and final will be However, Georgia. answer is settled in this case quick brought will if this case is to the respondent, opinion. my Louisiana, Levy statute, wrongful recovery a Louisiana which denied death children, illegitimate the death of the mother to held un equal a denial protection.

constitutional as declared: court premise "We start from the children are not 'non humans, live, persons.’ They being. They are have their are clearly 'persons’ Equal within the Protection clause of the Fourteenth While Amendment. a State has broad power classifications, making may when it comes to ... against draw a line which constitutes an invidious discrimination particular Why . . class. should the be denied rights merely certainly his birth out wedlock? He responsibilities citizen, including pay all the conscription ment of taxes and under the Selective Act. Service regime How under our constitutional can he be denied correlative enjoy? Legitimacy illegitimacy which other citizens wrong allegedly birth to the relation nature of inflicted children, though illegitimate, depen on the mother. These were her; them; they dent on she cared for them nurtured were sense; biological spiritual indeed and in the in her hers wrong any dependent death suffered the sense would. We them conclude that invidious to discriminate action, conduct, possibly relevant when no or demeanor theirs is (Under to the harm that was done the mother.” Code Ann. 105- (Ga. 43, 45; pp. L. as amended dependent illegitimate has the to sue for a tortious mother.) injury to or death his or her judgment is correct and should be Court of affirmed. MADDOX; PARTAIN vice versa.