AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions affirming a complaint brought by Julia Tompkins and prosecuted by the Commissioner of Public Charities of the City of New York against Lester Leary. The central factual matter is paternity: it was conceded that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the complainant many times during the year preceding the birth of the child and that there was no evidence she had intercourse with any other person. The child was born on February 14, 1910. The defendant testified that intercourse began in January 1909 and continued until about April 15, 1909 (when he went to Maine); intercourse was renewed after his return, late in July of 1909. The defendant contended in his brief that, because the child was "a mature, full grown, nine months' child," he could not be the father. The Appellate Division considered whether the timing of intercourse was consistent with paternity and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Sessions.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the timing of the defendant's admitted sexual intercourse precludes his paternity of the child born February 14, 1910 (i.e., whether the period between intercourse and birth, as asserted by the defendant, conclusively excludes him as father).
  2. Whether the judgment of the Court of Special Sessions should be affirmed based on the medical and jurisprudential authorities concerning the possible duration of human gestation and the dates testified to by the parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

  • The appellant (defendant) argued in his brief that "the child born, being a mature, full grown, nine months' child, proves conclusively that the defendant is not the father of said child." The briefs on both sides were described as devoted to whether the child could have resulted from the last intercourse.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Mayer v. Davis (119 App. Div. 96) Explains the usual or average period of human gestation (approximately 280 days), notes that the period from intercourse to delivery may be longer, and discusses allowances (10–20 days or more) in reckoning possible dates of conception and delivery; cites authorities and explains that continental statutes use 300 days and New York has used a year in related proceedings. The court relied on the principles discussed in Mayer v. Davis to show that allowances in reckoning gestation and the time from intercourse to delivery make a 305-day interval (as here asserted) within the possibilities of natural gestation, supporting affirmation of the judgment.
Mayer v. Davis, 122 App. Div. 393 Noted by the opinion as a reargument correction to an error in the case previously cited. The court observed that an error in the cited Mayer decision was corrected on reargument but stated that the correction had no relation to the question under consideration in this case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the conceded facts: the defendant admitted multiple sexual relations with the complainant during the year prior to the child's birth and there was no evidence of other partners. The defendant asserted that because the child appeared to be a full nine months' child, he could not be the father. The court examined the dates testified to by the defendant: intercourse beginning January 1909, continuing until about April 15, 1909 (when he left for Maine), and renewed late in July after his return. The court calculated the period from the April intercourse to the birth on February 14, 1910 as 305 days (counting the dates of intercourse and delivery) and observed that medical writers consider such periods within the range of probability.

To support this conclusion the court cited multiple medical authorities (Wharton Stille's Medical Jurisprudence; Appleton's Medical Series (Obstetrics); the American Text Book of Obstetrics) that record actual instances and professional opinions showing that pregnancies may extend well beyond the commonly stated 280 days — with reported gestations up to and beyond 320–336 days in some records — and that allowances are appropriate for variations in the time of conception relative to intercourse and for delayed delivery after fetal maturity.

The court also relied upon the prior Appellate Division decision in Mayer v. Davis discussing the usual gestation period, the difference between intercourse-to-delivery and gestation proper, and the allowance of additional days when retrospectively determining paternity. Applying these medical and jurisprudential authorities to the facts (including the 305-day interval and the evidence that intercourse was repeated and confined to the complainant), the court concluded that the defendant might be the father within the possibilities of natural gestation and therefore affirmed the lower court's judgment.

A concurring opinion by Justice Burr noted that, given "the uncontradicted evidence that the child was not a full term child," the extended medical discussion was unnecessary, but he concurred in the result. Other justices concurred.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Sessions.

Implications: The direct effect is the affirmation of the lower court's judgment regarding the paternity/support matter between the parties. The court's decision rests on established medical literature and prior Appellate Division discussion showing that periods longer than the typical 280 days fall within natural possibility; the opinion does not announce a novel legal rule beyond applying those authorities to the facts of this case.


Court and disposition notes drawn from the opinion: HIRSCHBERG, J., delivered the opinion; JENKS, P.J., and WOODWARD, J., concurred; BURR, J., concurred in result (separate memorandum); CARR, J., concurred in result. Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.

THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, on Complaint of JULIA TOMPKINS, Respondent, v. LESTER LEARY, Appellant.

HIRSCHBERG, J.:

It is conceded that the defendant had sexual intercourse with the complainant many times during the year preceding the birth of the child, and there is no evidence that she ever had sexual intercourse with any other person. The last occasion of the defendant's intercourse was less than six months before the birth of the child, and the defendant in his brief claims that "the child born, being a mature, full grown, nine months' child, proves conclusively that the defendant is not the father of said child." The case was submitted without argument and the briefs on both sides are devoted to the question whether the child could have been the result of the last intercourse. Inasmuch, however, as the intercourse admitted was at such times that the defendant may be the father, assuming the full period of gestation to have elapsed and the child to be, as claimed by the defendant, fully grown and mature, the judgment may yet be affirmed as within the possibilities of nature's law.

The child was born on February 14, 1910. The defendant testified that his intercourse with the complainant commenced in January, 1909, and continued until he went to Maine, which, his father said, was on the 15th day of April, 1909. The intervening period is 305 days, including the date of intercourse and the date of delivery; and text writers are agreed that such period is quite within the range of probability. The sexual intercourse was renewed some time after his return from Maine, late in July of the same year.

In Wharton Stille's Medical Jurisprudence (Vol. 3, § 52) a condensed table of actual results in cases of pregnancy is printed, in reference to which the authors say: "The total number of cases here reported is 782, of which 355, or nearly one-half, went beyond the 280th day, up to the 326th day. If we take the number that went beyond the 274th day, there will be 547, or more than two-thirds of the whole number of women in these reports whose pregnancy lasted longer than what has been considered the average duration of this condition."

In Appleton's Medical Series (Obstetrics) (2d ed. p. 164) Professor Williams says: "Usually labor ensues about two hundred and eighty days (ten lunar months) after the beginning of the last menstrual period, so that the approximate duration of pregnancy is two hundred and seventy days, supposing that conception has occurred within the few days immediately following the menstrual flow. This rule, however, is subject to many exceptions, as apparently well-developed children may be born as early as the two hundred and fortieth, and as late as the three hundred and twentieth, day after the last menstrual period, and there is no doubt that in exceptional instances the actual duration of pregnancy may equal, if not exceed, three hundred days."

In the American Text Book of Obstetrics the writers say (p. 179): "Numerous cases are on record of a prolongation of pregnancy to 336, 332, 324 and 319 days, respectively, after the last menstruation. Granting that conception in these cases did not take place within a few days after the last menstruation, as is the rule, but was postponed to just before the first missed period of that function, we can subtract about 23 days from these periods of gestation, and will then have 313, 309, 301 and 296 days, each exceeding the ordinary duration of pregnancy."

In Mayer v. Davis ( 119 App. Div. 96) Mr. Justice GAYNOR, writing for the unanimous court, said (p. 97): "The usual or average period of human gestation, i.e., from the beginning of pregnancy to the maturity of the fœtus, when delivery should and usually does take place, is 10 lunar months, or 40 weeks, i.e., 280 days. The period from intercourse to delivery may not be identical with that of gestation, but much longer. There is much literature, ancient and modern, in favor of the claim that this latter period may normally last 11 calendar months, especially to save a widow and her tardy offspring from anything worse than suspicion; but it has scarcely survived the immortal satire of Rabelais (B'k 1, ch. 3). Pregnancy does not always take place and gestation therefore begin at the time of intercourse but several days (even more than a week, respectable medical writers say) later, when the ovum has become ripe to receive the male seed, which retains its vitality in the generative tract meanwhile. By making allowance for this in reckoning back from the birth of a child, and also for the several days, at least, that delivery may be postponed beyond the usual period of gestation, i.e., after the growth of the fœtus has become complete, from 10 to 20 days may be easily added. (Coke on Lit. by H. B. p. 123 b., n. 1 2; 2 Greenl. on Ev. sec. 152; Bouv. L.D. vol. 1 [Rawl. Rev.], p. 882; Herold on Legal Med. chap. 40; Lusk on Midwifery, p. 108; Am. Text Book of Obstetrics, p. 176.) Hence 300 days from the time of last possible access is generally established by statute on the continent of Europe as the period to determine legitimacy. (Code Napoleon, art. 312.) In this State a whole year has long been established by statute as the period in proceedings for the support of bastards. (1 R.S. 641; Code Crim. Pro. sec. 838.)"

An error in the case cited was corrected on reargument ( Mayer v. Davis, 122 App. Div. 393), but it had no relation to the question now under consideration.

The judgment should be affirmed.

JENKS, P.J., and WOODWARD, J., concurred; BURR, J., concurred in result in separate memorandum; CARR, J., concurred in result.

BURR, J.:

In view of the uncontradicted evidence that the child was not a full term child this lengthy medical discussion seems to me to be unnecessary. I concur in result.

CARR, J., concurred.

Judgment of the Court of Special Sessions affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC CHARITIES v. LEARY
(Apr 28, 1911)