Lind v. Burke
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Hamilton county. Heard below before Bates, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. August Lind did not, by writing signed in presence of a competent witness, acknowledge himself to be the father of plaintiff, within the meaning of section 31, chapter 23, Compiled Statutes. (Hunt v. Hunt, 37 Me. 333; Estate of Sanford, 4 Cal. 12; 24 Am. & Eng. Ency.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the district court of Hamilton county. Heard below before Bates, J. The opinion contains a statement of the case. August Lind did not, by writing signed in presence of a competent witness, acknowledge himself to be the father of plaintiff, within the meaning of section 31, chapter 23, Compiled Statutes. (Hunt v. Hunt, 37 Me. 333; Estate of Sanford, 4 Cal. 12; 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law 414; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682; Pratt v. Atwood, 108 Mass. 40; Knight v. New England Worsted Co., 2 Cush. [Mass.] 272.) The purpose of the statute was to enable illegitimate children to inherit their…
1Opinion of the CourtHakrison, C. J.
The appellee commenced this action to recover an alleged interest in the estate of August Lind, deceased, and it was for appellee pleaded that he was the illegitimate child of August Lind, born in Sweden prior to the time the latter during his life came to America; that appellee had been rendered capable of heirship by an acknowledgment in writing, in the presence of a competent witness, by August Lind of his relationship of father of the appellee. BNom a decree favorable to the claim of appellee an appeal to this court has been perfected for the adverse parties.
By the common-law rule…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Holloway v. McCormickSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Moore v. FlackNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Peetz v. Masek Auto Supply Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1956
- Mooney v. MooneySupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- In re Estate of McCollumSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.