Laura Minnich (48272938)
Bureau County Tribune, Volume 34, Number 9, 2 March 1906
A case involving the inheritance rights of adopted children, was tried before Judge Stough, at the close of the late term of court here, which had in it some unusual points of interest for the general public. The case at bar was that of Mrs. Minnie Thompson of Argentina, Kan., vs. Mrs. Laura Minnick of Princeton. It appears that. Mrs. Thompson, whose family name was Saunders, was adopted by the late Mrs. McArthur, the mother of Mrs. Minnick, during the life of her husband, Mr. McArthur. At that time she made a contract with Mrs. Saunders, the mother of Mrs. Thompson, to adopt the child, and it was further stated in the contract that if Mrs. McArthur survived her husband, in that event and at her death the adopted child should share equally with her own children in her estate. Mr. McArthur died first. Mrs. McArthur died some years ago, but prior to her death made a will bequeathing her estate to her only child, Mrs. Laura Minnick, who was living with her at the time and has since occupied the property, situated on South Pleasant street, Princeton, and consisting of a house and three acres of ground valued at about $2,000. The recent suit in the circuit court was brought by Lawyer Eli Thompson of Chicago, in behalf of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Minnie Thompson, to enforce the specific performance of the contract made by Mrs. McArthur with Mrs. Chauncey Saunders, who was a widow at the time her child, Minnie, was adopted by Mrs. McArthur. After hearing the evidence, reading the contract and hearing arguments. Judge Stough decided in favor of the defendant, Mrs. Minnick. The points of the decision were that under the law in relation to married women, at the time the contract was made, Mrs. McArthur possessed no property and had no rights in her husband's estate, and the contract was therefore based on a contingency, and in law she could not contract to give something she did not possess. The second point was want of specific statement in the contract, the courts always having been very chary about limiting the right to bequeath by will. The court admitted that the act of adoption was legal, and therefore that the adopted child stood on a perfect equality with Mrs. McArthur's own child, but a parent has a right to disinherit a child. In a general way the courts seem loath to deny the right to disinherit an adopted child, even though a contract has been made to give the child an equal division of the estate with the children of the testator, as the following gist of decisions will show. Lawyers say such a contract may be written but they would hardly know how to do it, except by mentioning a specific piece of property
Contributor: Har37x (47671892)
Bureau County Tribune, Volume 34, Number 9, 2 March 1906
A case involving the inheritance rights of adopted children, was tried before Judge Stough, at the close of the late term of court here, which had in it some unusual points of interest for the general public. The case at bar was that of Mrs. Minnie Thompson of Argentina, Kan., vs. Mrs. Laura Minnick of Princeton. It appears that. Mrs. Thompson, whose family name was Saunders, was adopted by the late Mrs. McArthur, the mother of Mrs. Minnick, during the life of her husband, Mr. McArthur. At that time she made a contract with Mrs. Saunders, the mother of Mrs. Thompson, to adopt the child, and it was further stated in the contract that if Mrs. McArthur survived her husband, in that event and at her death the adopted child should share equally with her own children in her estate. Mr. McArthur died first. Mrs. McArthur died some years ago, but prior to her death made a will bequeathing her estate to her only child, Mrs. Laura Minnick, who was living with her at the time and has since occupied the property, situated on South Pleasant street, Princeton, and consisting of a house and three acres of ground valued at about $2,000. The recent suit in the circuit court was brought by Lawyer Eli Thompson of Chicago, in behalf of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Minnie Thompson, to enforce the specific performance of the contract made by Mrs. McArthur with Mrs. Chauncey Saunders, who was a widow at the time her child, Minnie, was adopted by Mrs. McArthur. After hearing the evidence, reading the contract and hearing arguments. Judge Stough decided in favor of the defendant, Mrs. Minnick. The points of the decision were that under the law in relation to married women, at the time the contract was made, Mrs. McArthur possessed no property and had no rights in her husband's estate, and the contract was therefore based on a contingency, and in law she could not contract to give something she did not possess. The second point was want of specific statement in the contract, the courts always having been very chary about limiting the right to bequeath by will. The court admitted that the act of adoption was legal, and therefore that the adopted child stood on a perfect equality with Mrs. McArthur's own child, but a parent has a right to disinherit a child. In a general way the courts seem loath to deny the right to disinherit an adopted child, even though a contract has been made to give the child an equal division of the estate with the children of the testator, as the following gist of decisions will show. Lawyers say such a contract may be written but they would hardly know how to do it, except by mentioning a specific piece of property
Contributor: Har37x (47671892)
Laura Minnich (48272938)
Bureau County Tribune, Volume 34, Number 9, 2 March 1906
A case involving the inheritance rights of adopted children, was tried before Judge Stough, at the close of the late term of court here, which had in it some unusual points of interest for the general public. The case at bar was that of Mrs. Minnie Thompson of Argentina, Kan., vs. Mrs. Laura Minnick of Princeton. It appears that. Mrs. Thompson, whose family name was Saunders, was adopted by the late Mrs. McArthur, the mother of Mrs. Minnick, during the life of her husband, Mr. McArthur. At that time she made a contract with Mrs. Saunders, the mother of Mrs. Thompson, to adopt the child, and it was further stated in the contract that if Mrs. McArthur survived her husband, in that event and at her death the adopted child should share equally with her own children in her estate. Mr. McArthur died first. Mrs. McArthur died some years ago, but prior to her death made a will bequeathing her estate to her only child, Mrs. Laura Minnick, who was living with her at the time and has since occupied the property, situated on South Pleasant street, Princeton, and consisting of a house and three acres of ground valued at about $2,000. The recent suit in the circuit court was brought by Lawyer Eli Thompson of Chicago, in behalf of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Minnie Thompson, to enforce the specific performance of the contract made by Mrs. McArthur with Mrs. Chauncey Saunders, who was a widow at the time her child, Minnie, was adopted by Mrs. McArthur. After hearing the evidence, reading the contract and hearing arguments. Judge Stough decided in favor of the defendant, Mrs. Minnick. The points of the decision were that under the law in relation to married women, at the time the contract was made, Mrs. McArthur possessed no property and had no rights in her husband's estate, and the contract was therefore based on a contingency, and in law she could not contract to give something she did not possess. The second point was want of specific statement in the contract, the courts always having been very chary about limiting the right to bequeath by will. The court admitted that the act of adoption was legal, and therefore that the adopted child stood on a perfect equality with Mrs. McArthur's own child, but a parent has a right to disinherit a child. In a general way the courts seem loath to deny the right to disinherit an adopted child, even though a contract has been made to give the child an equal division of the estate with the children of the testator, as the following gist of decisions will show. Lawyers say such a contract may be written but they would hardly know how to do it, except by mentioning a specific piece of property
Contributor: Har37x (47671892)
Bureau County Tribune, Volume 34, Number 9, 2 March 1906
A case involving the inheritance rights of adopted children, was tried before Judge Stough, at the close of the late term of court here, which had in it some unusual points of interest for the general public. The case at bar was that of Mrs. Minnie Thompson of Argentina, Kan., vs. Mrs. Laura Minnick of Princeton. It appears that. Mrs. Thompson, whose family name was Saunders, was adopted by the late Mrs. McArthur, the mother of Mrs. Minnick, during the life of her husband, Mr. McArthur. At that time she made a contract with Mrs. Saunders, the mother of Mrs. Thompson, to adopt the child, and it was further stated in the contract that if Mrs. McArthur survived her husband, in that event and at her death the adopted child should share equally with her own children in her estate. Mr. McArthur died first. Mrs. McArthur died some years ago, but prior to her death made a will bequeathing her estate to her only child, Mrs. Laura Minnick, who was living with her at the time and has since occupied the property, situated on South Pleasant street, Princeton, and consisting of a house and three acres of ground valued at about $2,000. The recent suit in the circuit court was brought by Lawyer Eli Thompson of Chicago, in behalf of his sister-in-law, Mrs. Minnie Thompson, to enforce the specific performance of the contract made by Mrs. McArthur with Mrs. Chauncey Saunders, who was a widow at the time her child, Minnie, was adopted by Mrs. McArthur. After hearing the evidence, reading the contract and hearing arguments. Judge Stough decided in favor of the defendant, Mrs. Minnick. The points of the decision were that under the law in relation to married women, at the time the contract was made, Mrs. McArthur possessed no property and had no rights in her husband's estate, and the contract was therefore based on a contingency, and in law she could not contract to give something she did not possess. The second point was want of specific statement in the contract, the courts always having been very chary about limiting the right to bequeath by will. The court admitted that the act of adoption was legal, and therefore that the adopted child stood on a perfect equality with Mrs. McArthur's own child, but a parent has a right to disinherit a child. In a general way the courts seem loath to deny the right to disinherit an adopted child, even though a contract has been made to give the child an equal division of the estate with the children of the testator, as the following gist of decisions will show. Lawyers say such a contract may be written but they would hardly know how to do it, except by mentioning a specific piece of property
Contributor: Har37x (47671892)
Family Members
Sponsored by Ancestry
Advertisement
Advertisement
