Opinion
23979.
ARGUED MARCH 13, 1967.
DECIDED MARCH 23, 1967.
Interpleader. Sumter Superior Court. Before Judge Marshall.
Claude N. Morris, for appellants.
William T. Roberts, William E. Smith, James V. Davis, for appellees.
The word "children" in the printed form of the group insurance policy under consideration in the present case, insuring the putative father of illegitimate children, can not be construed to mean illegitimate children who have not been legitimated by their father.
ARGUED MARCH 13, 1967 — DECIDED MARCH 23, 1967.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company brought an action for interpleader to determine the beneficiaries under a group insurance policy covering United States Civil Service employees, issued pursuant to the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, which policy covered Booker A. Hill, Sr., an employee of the United States Civil Service at Warner Robins, Georgia, at the time of his death on March 26, 1965. The insured named no beneficiary, and the terms of the policy relevant to the issue made in the interpleader are as follows: "If, at the death of the employee, there be no designated beneficiary as to all or any part of the insurance, then the amount of the insurance payable for which there is no designated beneficiary shall be payable to the person or persons listed below surviving at the date of the employee's death, in the following order of precedence: (1) To the widow or widower of the employee; (2) If neither of the above, to the child or children of such employee and descendants of deceased children by representation; ..." It was alleged: There is now due and payable to the lawful beneficiaries the sum of $7,000. Mrs. Josephine W. Cooper has filed a claim with the petitioner for the proceeds of the policy on behalf of Booker Alphonso Hill, Jr., and Karl Clayton Hill, alleging them to be children of Booker A. Hill, Sr. Annie Pearl Melvin has filed a claim on behalf of Sheila Yvonne Melvin and Alphonso Barnard Melvin, claiming that they are the illegitimate children of Booker A. Hill, Sr. Mrs. Josephine W. Cooper has filed a suit in the City Court of Americus to recover the proceeds of the policy. The petitioner prayed: that the claimants be required to interplead and set up their claims under the policy and the petitioner be discharged from all liability except to the persons adjudged to be entitled to the benefits of the policy; that Mrs. Cooper be enjoined from prosecuting her action; that the other claimants be enjoined from prosecuting any action to recover the proceeds of the policy; that a guardian ad litem be appointed for the minors, Sheila Yvonne Melvin and Alphonso Barnard Melvin; and for other relief.
The claimants were enjoined as prayed. Annie Pearl Melvin was appointed guardian ad litem to represent her children. An order was entered requiring the claimants to interplead, and the petitioner was ordered to deposit $7,000 with the Clerk of the Superior Court of Sumter County.
On the trial counsel for the guardian ad litem of Sheila Yvonne Melvin and Alphonso Barnard Melvin admitted that Booker Alphonso Hill, Jr., and Karl Clayton Hill were the legal children of Booker A. Hill, Sr.; and the only issue tried was whether Sheila Yvonne Melvin and Alphonso Barnard Melvin were the illegitimate children of Booker A. Hill, Sr. It appeared from the evidence that Booker A. Hill, Sr., left no widow.
At the conclusion of the evidence the trial judge directed the jury to find that Sheila Yvonne Melvin and Alphonso Barnard Melvin are the illegitimate children of Booker A. Hill, Sr., and that they are entitled to share equally with his legitimate children in the proceeds of the insurance. It was thereafter ordered that the proceeds of the policy be disbursed by paying to Mrs. Cooper $1,750 for each of her two children, and to Annie Pearl Melvin $1,750 for each of her two children. Mrs. Cooper appealed from this order.
The first question for determination is whether the word "children" in the beneficiary clause of a group insurance policy, insuring the putative father of illegitimate children, who have not been legitimated, can entitle these illegitimate children to share in the proceeds of the policy. Counsel have cited us no case in Georgia directly in point on this question, and we have found none. We must therefore look to the laws in this state relating to illegitimate children to determine whether they are included in the term "children" used in the policy. Foster v. Cheek, 212 Ga. 821, 827 ( 96 S.E.2d 545).
"Children and grandchildren, as used in statutes, generally refer to legitimate descendants, unless there is something which shows a contrary intent on the part of the legislature." Code § 102-103; Brinkley v. Dixie Constr. Co., 205 Ga. 415 ( 54 S.E.2d 267). "The words children and issue in deeds, wills, and other conveyances must be held to mean legitimate children or issue, unless the context is such as to require a different meaning, or the circumstances surrounding the execution of the paper are such as to make the words import other than legitimates." Johnstone v. Taliaferro, 107 Ga. 6, 20 ( 32 S.E. 931, 45 LRA 95); Hicks v. Smith, 94 Ga. 809 ( 22 S.E. 153); Wilson v. Ingram, 207 Ga. 271 ( 61 S.E.2d 126).
The mother of an illegitimate child is the only parent recognized by law, unless the father legitimates him. Code § 74-203; Floyd v. Floyd, 97 Ga. 124, 126 ( 24 S.E. 451). Illegitimate children have no rights of inheritance except that given them by law; they may inherit from their mother and from other children of the same mother. Code § 113-904.
The language in the insurance policy under consideration in the present case does not indicate in any way that the word "children" is intended to include any but legitimate children. Since it is a group insurance policy, and the language is a part of the printed form of the policy, no circumstances surrounding the execution of the policy would be enlightening as to the intended meaning of the word "children."
In view of the statutes and decisions of this court defining the word "children," and the policy of our law as to inheritance by illegitimate children, we must hold that the word "children" in the insurance policy of the putative father of the illegitimate children did not entitle them to share in the proceeds of the policy, and it was error to direct a verdict finding them entitled to a share of the proceeds, and to order the disbursement of one-half of the proceeds of the policy to them. It is unnecessary to consider other questions made by the enumeration of errors.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.