A judgment without such citation and opportunity wants all the attributes of a judicial determination.'" Adoption of Bascom, 126 Mont. 129 ( 246 P.2d 223); In re Adoption of a Minor, 160 F.2d 928; Storey v. Shumaker, 131 Colo. 131 ( 279 P.2d 1057); In re Holder, 218 N.C. 136 ( 10 S.E.2d 620); In Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416 ( 37 So.2d 735); In re Smith's Estate, 195 P.2d 842 (Calif. App.

The rule is followed in Mississippi. Moore v. Smith, 1937, 178 Miss. 383, 172 So. 317; Graham v. Lee, 1948, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735; Boone v. State, 1951, 204 Miss. 318, 51 So.2d 473. The judgment is

In the Moore case, in addition to the evidence excluded, there had been evidence by the appellant's mother that the husband had no access to the appellant during the required period. Herring v. Goodson, 42 Miss. 392, (1870); Moore v. Smith, 178 Miss. 383, 172 So. 317 (1937); Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1947); Boone v. State, 211 Miss. 318, 51 So.2d 473 (1951); Stone v. Stone, 210 So.2d 672 (1968). Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the children's deceased mother cannot testify to non-access.

No one disputes that Alexander was out of the country when the child was conceived. Kiril cites Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1948), for the proposition that public policy should prevent the bastardizing of a child against the wishes of a mother and presumptive father. In Baker By Williams v. Williams, 503 So.2d 249 (Miss.

Judge Smith said such proof would have been proper under the facts of that case, but recognized that this was a deviation from the general rule, concluding that "domestic and social policy does not require the exclusion of evidence here under consideration, and that justice would be best promoted by admitting the [evidence of non-access]. Justice Griffith, in Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1948), substantiates my view of the holding in Moore, supra. In that action a husband separated from his wife on receiving reliable information that she was engaging in an adulterous relationship with Graham in their home county of Lamar while he was employed in Pascagoula and separated from her. Less than nine months but approaching the same, a child was born to his wife while she lived with Graham and that same year Graham, without notice to the husband, adopted the child.

Pearl Lee Curtis' birth certificate indicates that she was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Elizabeth Fisher on June 11, 1925, while Elizabeth was still married to Granville Barnett, a/k/a Earl Burnett. Georgie B. Dixon offered the depositions of four witnesses and two affidavits that after the separation of Earl Burnett and Elizabeth Fisher, Burnett lived in Arkansas and did not visit with his wife, Elizabeth Fisher, during the time that Pearl Lee Curtis was conceived. Assuming without deciding that Georgie B. Dixon had standing to question the legitimacy of Pearl Lee Curtis, as to which, see Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1948), we think the chancellor's action in excluding the offered testimony was correct. The presumption that a child born in wedlock is a legitimate child is one of the strongest presumptions known to the law, Krohn v. Migues, 274 So.2d 654 (Miss. 1973), and may be rebutted only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the husband is not the father.

The testimony shows that her husband, Hudson Migues, was not made a party to the proceedings nor summoned, because he told the attorneys he was not the father of the child. In the case of Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735 (1948), one Graham and the mother of a child filed a petition to adopt a minor child. They alleged that the petitioner Graham was the natural father of the illegitimate child.

I. The Chancellor erred in refusing, on timely application, to require the minutes of the Banking Board to be made a part of the record on appeal, and such refusal is failure of procedural due process of law. Board of Education of Benton County, Mississippi v. State Educational Finance Comm., 243 Miss. 782, 138 So.2d 912; City of Meridian v. Davidson, 211 Miss. 683, 53 So.2d 48; Clinton v. Missouri P.R. Co., 7 S.Ct. 1268; Court v. Fisk, 7 How. (8 Miss.) 403; Davis v. Davis (Miss.), 37 So.2d 735; Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. v. Majure, 176 Miss. 356, 168 So. 468; Hume v. Inglis, 154 Miss. 481, 122 So. 535; Jackson v. Gordon, 194 Miss. 268, 11 So.2d 201; Lee County v. James, 178 Miss. 554, 174 So. 76; Moore v. White, 161 Miss. 390, 137 So. 99; Planters Bank v. Garrott, 239 Miss. 248, 122 So.2d 256; Reynolds v. Wilkinson, 119 Miss. 590, 81 So. 278; State v. Autry, 236 Miss. 316, 110 So.2d 377; State Highway Dept. v. Duckworth, 178 Miss. 35, 172 So. 148; Tucker v. State (Miss.), 12 So.2d 524; 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 639 p. 329; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, Secs. 59, 250 pp. 230, 441; 73 C.J.S., Public Administration, Sec. 182 p. 528. II. The Banking Board did not have jurisdiction of the matter because the statutory notices were not given. Clinton v. Missouri P.R. Co., supra; Lee County v. James, supra; Moore v. White, supra; Planters Bank v. Garrott, supra; Simpson v. City of Gulfport, 239 Miss. 136, 121 So.2d 409; 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, Sec. 188

I. Cited and discussed the following authorities. Bailey v. Muse, 227 Miss. 51, 85 So.2d 918; Brooks v. State, 219 Miss. 262, 68 So.2d 461; Colbert v. Henley, 64 Miss. 374, 1 So. 631; Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735; Malouf v. State, 187 Miss. 331, 192 So. 2; Polk v. State, 167 Miss. 506, 142 So. 480; Retail Credit Co. v. Garroway, 240 Miss. 230, 126 So.2d 271; State v. Marshall, 100 Miss. 626, 56 So. 792; Wood Naval Stores Export Assn. v. Latimer, 229 Miss. 197, 90 So.2d 379; Zambroni v. State, 217 Miss. 418, 64 So.2d 335; Secs. 1073, 1291, Code 1942; 17 Am. Jur., Discovery and Inspection, Sec. 2. RODGERS, J.

John B. Gee, Vicksburg, for appellee. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Anderson v. Anderson, 190 Miss. 508, 200 So. 726; Fleming v. Fleming, 213 Miss. 74, 56 So.2d 35; Graham v. Lee, 204 Miss. 416, 37 So.2d 735; Morris v. City of Columbia, 184 Miss. 342, 186 So. 292; Santos v. Santos, 225 Miss. 425, 83 So.2d 636; Secs. 1291, 2735, Code 1942; Amis on Divorce and Separation in Mississippi, p. 202. ETHRIDGE, J.