In Equity. Demurrer to the bill. Allegations of the bill: Mrs. Young died in Massachusetts May 7, 1889, intestate, owning land in this county, and leaving neither issue nor husband. The plaintiffs are her next of kin by blood, and are tenants in common of the land as her heirs unless the defendant has a better title. The defendant was legally adopted in Massachusetts, April 28, 1884, by Warren H. Holt, wbo was the son and only issue o£ Mrs. Young.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-12-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1922
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1
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.
