Legal Opinion

Haworth v. Haworth

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1907PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Eon. W. N. Evans, Judge. (1) The adoption being in derogation of the common law, and of purely statutory enactment, like all other similar statutes, must be strictly followed, and the proof must be so cogent, clear and forcible as to leave no doubt in the mind of the chancellor. There must be no equivocation or uncertainty in the case. It must be in terms a contract, and not a mere declaration of intention.

Read the full summary

Appeal from Howell Circuit Court. — Eon. W. N. Evans, Judge. (1) The adoption being in derogation of the common law, and of purely statutory enactment, like all other similar statutes, must be strictly followed, and the proof must be so cogent, clear and forcible as to leave no doubt in the mind of the chancellor. There must be no equivocation or uncertainty in the case. It must be in terms a contract, and not a mere declaration of intention. Casual and loose conversations is dangerous testimony, and should be looked upon with jealousy and weighed in the most scrupulous manner. These…

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

(after stating the facts)— 1. It is contended by defendants that the deed of adoption as set up in the petition, and as found to have been executed by the chancellor, is void, for the reason that neither the plaintiff nor his parent or guardian, or any other person joined him in the execution of the deed. The statute (section 5246, R. S. 1899) does not require that a-deed of adoption shall be executed and acknowledged by " any person other than the one who desires to adopt the child named in the deed, and such a deed is valid though not consented to by the child, his natural parent, or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Reinders v. KoppelmannSupreme Court of Missouri · 1878
  2. Clarkson v. HattonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  3. Green v. DitschSupreme Court of Missouri · 1898
  4. Sarazin v. Union RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
  5. In re ClementsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cubley v. BarbeeTexas Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Alexander v. SamuelsSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
  3. Roberts v. CaughellSupreme Court of Florida · 1953
  4. Coombs v. CookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
  5. In Re Garcia's EstateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1940

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API