Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1889

Meader v. Archer

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Decided December 5, 1889 · Doe, Bingham

23 A. 521; 65 N.H. 214

Counsel

C. H. Knight, for the plaintiffs. The defendant was adopted in Massachusetts, and his domicile is and always has been there, as well as that of Holt, his adopting parent, and that of Holt's mother, Mrs. Young, at the time of their decease. If, under these circumstances, he has any status here as an adopted child (Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243 , 245 ), his rights are limited by the Massachusetts statute under which he was adopted, and by which his status was established. The Estate of Sunderland, 60 Iowa 732 . "As to the succession to property, a person adopted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall take the same share of property which the adopting parent could have devised by will that he would have taken if born to such parent in lawful wedlock, and he shall stand in regard to the legal descendants, but to no other of the kindred of such parent, in the same position as if so born to him." Pub. St. Mass., c. 148, s. 7. "The intent of the statute was to put an adopted child, for all legal purposes with certain carefully defined exceptions in the place of a natural child." Delano v. Bruerton, 148 Mass. 619 , 620 . Mrs. Young being the mother, and not a legal descendant, of Holt, the defendant has no title. The Estate of Sunderland, supra; Safford v. Houghton, 48 Vt. 236 ; Quigley v. Mitchell, 41 Ohio St. 375 ; 9 Am. L. Rev. 80; 10 id. 781. Marston Eastman, for the defendant.

Opinion of the Court

Doe, G. J.

Holt’s mother outlived him and owned the land at the time of her death, and the plaintiffs are her next of kin. The defendant is Holt’s adopted son. As Holt had no title, the land did not go to the defendant as Holt’s heir. By the law of the defendant’s adoption, he could inherit property which Holt “could have devised by will.” This land Holt could not have devised. By the same law, “ as to the succession to property,” the defendant stands, “ in regard to the legal descendants, but to no other of the kindred of” Holt, in the same position as if he were Holt’s son. This does not make him an heir of Holt’s mother. No objection being made in argument to the form of action, the question of procedure has not been considered.

Case discharged.

Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.