Foster v. Waterman
| Decision Date | 29 June 1878 |
| Citation | Foster v. Waterman, 124 Mass. 592 (Mass. 1878) |
| Parties | Mary A. Foster v. Martin T. Waterman |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
Middlesex. Appeal by Martin T. Waterman, in his own right and as guardian of his adopted child, from a decree of the Probate Court, appointing commissioners, on the petition dated September 25, 1876, of Mary A. Foster, to make partition of a parcel of land in Newton, in accordance with the petition. The petition set forth that the petitioner and Sarah E. Small were seised and possessed each of one undivided fourth of the land, and that the shares were not in dispute.
The case was heard before Soule, J., who reserved it for the consideration of the full court upon the following facts agreed:
Martin T. Waterman, the appellant, and Asa Bodge, were seised in fee of the premises described in the petition, as tenants in common, each of an undivided half thereof. Bodge died testate on or about October 4, 1867, and by his will, which was duly proved and allowed, gave the use of his moiety of the premises to his wife, Sarah E. Bodge, during her life, and at her decease, he gave said moiety to his three daughters Sarah E. Small, Mary A. Foster, and Esther D. Waterman, in fee, share and share alike. Sarah E. Bodge died prior to the filing of this petition. Esther D. Waterman was the lawful wife of Martin T. Waterman, and died after the death of Sarah E. Bodge, and before the filing of this petition, intestate, having had no child by Martin T. born alive.
By a decree of the Probate Court in and for the county of Hillsborough, in the State of New Hampshire, on November 15, 1870, "upon petition of James Campbell, Jr., and his wife, Annette Campbell, of Mason, in said county, and upon petition of Martin T. and Esther D. Waterman, of Newton in the county of Middlesex and Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ida A. Campbell, a child of said James and Annette Campbell, is from this date the adopted child of said Martin T. and Esther D. Waterman; and said child is from this date, to all legal intents and purposes, the child of said Martin T. and Esther D., the same as if born to them in lawful wedlock; and the name of said child is changed, and from this date she shall take the name of Florence Esther Waterman."
The statutes of New Hampshire, in force at the date of the adoption of this child, provide that petitioners may have leave to adopt a child as their own by decree of the Probate Court in the county where the petitioner or the child resides, setting forth the facts, and ordering "that from the date of the decree the child shall, to all legal intents and purposes, be the child of the petitioner;" that "a child so adopted shall be, for the purposes of inheritance by such child and all other legal consequences...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
State ex rel. Damon v. McQuillin
...far as property rights are concerned. Irving v. Ford, 183 Mass. 448, 65 L.R.A. 177 and notes; Davis v. McGraw, 206 Mass. 295; Foster v. Waterman, 124 Mass. 592; Renz v. Drury, 57 Kan. 84; Furgeson Jones, 17 Ore. 204; Blythe v. Ayres, 96 Cal. 532; McCreery v. Davis, 44 S.C. 195; Tyler v. Rey......
-
Nugent v. Powell
... ... p. 64. N., 1; Tyler v. Reynolds, 43 Ia. 146; ... Long v. Hewitt, 44 Ia. 363; Furgeson v ... Jones, 17 Or. 204; Foster v. Waterman, 124 ... Mass. 592.) A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to hear and ... determine any matter affecting the rights of any person, ... ...
-
Anderson v. French
...here at the time of her adoption in Massachusetts, the decree would have been void because of nonresidence of the parties. Foster v. Waterman, 124 Mass. 592. Chapter 181 of the Public Statutes provides for the adoption of a child, by an inhabitant of this state, by proceedings in the probat......
-
Hindman v. O'Connor
... ... Pulaski County v. Stuart, 69 Va. 872, 28 ... Gratt. 872; Gibney v. Crawford, 51 Ark. 34, ... 9 S.W. 309; Foster v. Waterman, 124 Mass ... 592; Furgeson v. Jones, 11 Am. St. Rep ... 808; S. C., 17 Ore. 204; Brown v. Wheelock, ... 75 Tex. 385, 12 ... ...