Ida Richardson Hood v. McGehee
| Decision Date | 01 June 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 281,281 |
| Citation | 59 L.Ed. 1144,35 S.Ct. 718,237 U.S. 611 |
| Parties | IDA RICHARDSON HOOD and Odile Mussom Hood Holland, Appts., v. J. B. MCGEHEE et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. E. Howard McCaleb for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 611-613 intentionally omitted] Mr. John P. Tillman for appellees.
This is a bill to quiet title to land in Alabama. It was dismissed by the circuit court on demurrer and the decree was affirmed without further discussion by the circuit court of appeals. 189 Fed. 205, 117 C. C. A. 664, 199 Fed. 989. The plaintiffs and appellants are children of the late General Hood and were adopted in Louisiana in 1880 by George T. McGehee, who bought the property in question in 1886. The defendants are McGehee's heirs if the Louisiana adoption does not entitle the plaintiffs to the Alabama land. The bill sets up that the adoption did entitle them to it by virtue of article 4, § 1, of the Constitution of the act of Congress in pursuance of the same, entitling the Louisiana record to full faith and credit. By the instrument of adoption the McGehees 'bind and obligate themselves to support, maintain and educate [the plaintiffs] as if they were their own children; and hereby invest them with all the rights and benefits of legitimate children in their estate;' and the bill further sets up that the latter clause constituted a contract with the plaintiffs so to invest them. It alleges services as children to McGehee, and also an advance to him of $8,600, being the plaintiffs' share of the Hood Relief Fund collected in the Southern states. Finally a familiar letter of McGehee to the plaintiffs, which has been probated as a will in Mississippi, where McGehee lived, but is not alleged to have been admitted to probate in Alabama, is set forth, valeat quantum. It states that, with immaterial exceptions, 'everything else of mine is to be yours equally divided,' and that the letter will be valid as a will.
The alleged will is relied upon only as confirming the intent supposed to be expressed by the instrument of adoption, and as showing that, if the bill is dismissed, it should be dismissed without prejudice. As there seems to be no ground for supposing that it could take effect on real estate in Alabama, it may be laid on one side. The other contentions were correctly disposed of by Judge Grubb in an accurately reasoned opinion. The Alabama statute of descents as construed by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State of North Carolina
...924, 17 Ann.Cas. 853, Olmsted v. Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386, 30 S.Ct. 292, 54 L.Ed. 530, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1292, and Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144, or the interest of a state in the application of its own workmen's compensation statute in Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Indust......
-
Bradford Electric Light Co v. Clapper
...Tennessee Coal, Iron & R. R. Co. v. George, 233 U. S. 354, 34 S. Ct. 587, 58 L. Ed. 997, L. R. A. 1916D, 685; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U. S. 611, 35 S. Ct. 718, 59 L. Ed. 1144; see Union Trust Co. v. Grosman, 245 U. S. 412, 415, 416, 38 S. Ct. 147, 62 L. Ed. 368; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. ......
-
Magnolia Petroleum Co v. Hunt
...530, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 1292; Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243, 32 S.Ct. 415, 56 L.Ed. 749, Ann.Cas.1913D, 1292; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144; Broderick v. Rosner, 294 U.S. 629, 642, 55 S.Ct. 589, 592, 79 L.Ed. 1100, 100 A.L.R. 1133; cf. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins......
-
Carroll v. Lanza
...34 S.Ct. 879, 58 L.Ed. 1259; Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U.S. 531, 35 S.Ct. 724, 59 L.Ed. 1089; Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611, 35 S.Ct. 718, 59 L.Ed. 1144; Marin v. Augedahl, 247 U.S. 142, 38 S.Ct. 452, 62 L.Ed. 1038; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Dunken, 266 U.S. 389, 45 S......
-
Elizabeth Redpath, Between Judgment and Law: Full Faith and Credit, Public Policy, and State Records
...affected.” See id. (quoting Estin, 334 U.S. at 544–45) (internal quotation marks omitted). The majority also discussed Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (1915), “where children adopted in Louisiana brought a quiet title action concerning land in Alabama against their adoptive father’s natural c......
-
Does Heather have two mommies? The importance of full faith and credit recognition for adoptions by same-sex couples.
...Many Societal Actors that Determine What the Constitution Requires, 90 MINN. L. REV. 915, 933 (2006). (47.) Baker, 522 U.S. at 235. (48.) 237 U.S. 611 (49.) ld. at 615. (50.) Id (51.) Adar v. Smith, 639 F.3d 146, 177 (5th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 400 (2011) (Wiener, J., dissenti......