Barnard v. Barnard
Citations
- 119 Ill. 92
- 8 N.E. 320
Syllabus
<p>1. Adoption op children—of the petition—its requisites. A petition by a party to enable him to adopt a child under the act of 1867, in order to give the court jurisdiction to act, need not recite any jurisdictional facts except those the statute specifies shall be recited.,</p> <p>2. The law does not require the petition to state the name of the father of the child, and that he consents, whether he is dead, or, if he be alive, that he has abandoned the child. In such case, it will be sufficient to state the mother’s name, and that she consents, and the failure to allege in the petition the death of the father, or his abandonment, will not go to the jurisdiction of the court. When the father is not named, it will be presumed he was dead or had abandoned his child.</p> <p>3. Same—jurisdiction of county court—presumption. Where an order of the county court, made in 1870, for the adoption of a child, is shown, it will be presumed that the court had jurisdiction, unless it appears from the record itself that it could not have had jurisdiction in any contingency, or unless the statute authorizing the court to act, requires the record affirmatively to show, precedent to its decree, some fact which it fails to show.</p> <p>■ 4. Same—questioning decree collaterally. An order or decree of the county court, made under the act of 1867, declaring a child to be the adopted child and heir of another, if the court had jurisdiction to act at all, however erroneous it may be, must stand until reversed in some direct proceeding.</p> <p>5. Witness—competency of party as against one suing as heir. On bill by a minor adopted heir for the partition of the lands of which his adopting father died seized, and for the assignment of dower, the widow of the deceased ancestor is not a competent witness to prove advances made by her to her husband, to discharge incumbrances on the land, and have such advances made a lien on the premises in her favor.</p> <p>6. Infant—whether his rights waived
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Foley v. FoleyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1895-05-28· cited 41×
- Hopkins v. GiffordIllinois Supreme Court· 1923-10-20· cited 37×
- Watts v. DullIllinois Supreme Court· 1900-02-19· cited 35×
- Kennedy v. BorahIllinois Supreme Court· 1907-02-21· cited 25×
- Brown's AdoptionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1904-05-19· cited 15×
- Giles v. KeunnenAppellate Court of Illinois· 1964-07-16· cited 14×
- Musselman v. ParagnikIllinois Supreme Court· 1925-06-18· cited 12×
- Carter Oil Co. v. NormanSeventh Circuit· 1942-11-17· cited 12×
- McNabb v. IrvingtonIllinois Supreme Court· 1923-04-18· cited 9×
- People ex rel. Burr v. FaheyAppellate Court of Illinois· 1923-06-26· cited 6×
- Adams v. AdamsMississippi Supreme Court· 1912-03-15· cited 4×
- McCann v. JeanIndiana Supreme Court· 1893-05-23· cited 3×
- MacLachlan v. PeaseAppellate Court of Illinois· 1896-11-30· cited 2×
- People ex rel. Warner v. WethelAppellate Court of Illinois· 1916-11-15· cited 2×
- Liptak v. YuleMontana Supreme Court· 1939-05-31· cited 1×
- Richardson v. RichardsonAppellate Court of Illinois· 1892-12-12
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.