Farnsworth v. Goebel
| Decision Date | 13 October 1921 |
| Citation | 132 N.E. 414,240 Mass. 18 |
| Parties | FARNSWORTH et al. v. GOEBEL et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Probate Court, Worcester County; Frederick H. Chamberlain, Judge.
Petition by Sidney W. Farnsworth and others against Robert H. Goebel and others for revocation of decree of adoption. From decree dismissing the petition, petitioners appeal. Affirmed.
Haight, Adcock, Haight & Harris, of Chicago, Ill., and Frederick J. Dunn and Rowland J. Hastings, both of Worcester, for appellants.
John W. Mawbey and Harrison W. Bowker, both of Worcester, for respondents.
This case is an appeal from a decree of the probate court dismissing a petition for revocation of a decree of adoption. At the request of the petitioners the judge made a report to the court which contains all the material facts. These facts show that February, 7, 1919, a petition for the adoption of Madeline H. McClintock, then residing in Lancaster, Massachusetts, was filed in the probate court, at Worcester, Massachusetts.The petitioners were Robert G. Goebel, a resident of Berlin, New Hampshire, and his wife, Ethel M. Goebel. Madeline was born April 8, 1914. Her parents were deceased at the date of the petition, and the petitioner Ethel M. Goebel is her aunt, her father's sister. The paternal grandparents residing in Lancaster assented in writing to the granting of the petition, and counsel for the maternal grandparents entered his appearance in opposition. A guardian ad litem for Madeline was appointed, was present at the trial, made a verbal report and gave his assent. R. L. c. 154, § 4.
The petitioners for revocation of the decree contend that the probate court under R. L. c. 154, now G. L. c. 210, cannot grant a petition for adoption to a noninhabitant of the commonwealth unless such person shall have his domiciliary residence within this commonwealth. This position is unsound. The change in phrasing ‘any inhabitant of this commonwealth’ contained in St. 1851, c. 324, § 1, Gen. St. 1860, c. 110, § 1, to ‘any person’ in Gen. St. 1871, c. 310, § 1, and in all subsequent statutes, manifestly was intended to permit the adoption of resident children by petitioners who were domiciled in another state, and was not merely to remove the necessity of the petitioner being both an inhabitant and a domiciled resident. Stearns v. Allen, 183 Mass. 404, 407, 67 N. E. 349,47 Am. St. Rep. 441.
The petitioners next contend that the petition for adoption was insufficient in alleging the place of residence of the petitioners or of the child. This contention is founded upon the assumption and declaration that ‘A probate court of Massachusetts is a court of limited jurisdiction’; that ‘The fact of residence is jurisdictional; that is, residence is essential to jurisdiction of the probate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmidt v. Schmidt
...must be assumed, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the record, that all jurisdictional facts were proved. Farnsworth v. Goebel, 240 Mass. 18, 132 N. E. 414. The decree of the court was a final adjudication of all matters set forth in the petition. Harrington v. Harrington, 189 M......
-
Petition for Revocation of a Judgment for Adoption of a Minor
...1767-1769, 60 L.Ed.2d 297 (1979). See also Adoption of a Minor (No. 2), 367 Mass. 684, 687, 327 N.E.2d 875 (1975). Farnsworth v. Goebel, 240 Mass. 18, 22, 132 N.E. 414 (1921). Other jurisdictions also have interpreted strictly statutes concerned with notice and consent requirements for adop......
-
Kennedy v. Simmons
...the record to the contrary it must be assumed that the decree was based upon proof of all the essential jurisdictional facts. Farnsworth v. Goebel, 240 Mass. 18 . Schmidt Schmidt, 280 Mass. 216 . Wilbur v. Hallett, 305 Mass. 554. The parties, with the consent of the judge, have put in evide......
-
Wilbur v. Hallett
...the petitioner must be taken to have had due notice of that proceeding and an opportunity to be heard thereon. Farnsworth v. Goebel, 240 Mass. 18, 132 N.E. 414;Farquhar v. New England Trust Co., 261 Mass. 209, 212, 158 N.E. 836. It is true that under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 197, § 19, a legatee ma......