James v. James
| Decision Date | 21 September 1904 |
| Citation | 35 Wash. 650,77 P. 1080 |
| Parties | JAMES v. JAMES. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; William E. Richardson Judge.
Action by Charles James against Le Roy James. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Hartson & Holloway, for appellant.
Nash & Nash and James Dawson, for respondent.
This is an action for partition of real property. In his complaint the respondent, who was plaintiff below, alleges that he is the owner in fee of an undivided seven-tenths interest in the east half of the southwest quarter, and lots 3 and 4 of section 30, in township 24 north, of range 44 east of the Willamette Meridian; that Bertha James, Mabel E. James, and Walter W. James are the owners in fee of the remaining three-tenths interest; and that it is to the best interest of all of said owners that the property be partitioned between them. He then alleges that the appellant, Le Roy James claims some interest in the property as the heir at law of Margaret James, the deceased wife of the plaintiff, who died leaving a community interest therein, but that 'said Le Roy James is in no way related * * * to Margaret James, deceased, * * * and has no right, title, or interest of any name or nature in or to the property.' The prayer of the complaint was that the defendant Le Roy James be adjudged to be without interest in the property, and that it be partitioned between the plaintiff and defendants other than Le Roy James. To the complaint Le Roy James answered, setting up that he had been adopted by the plaintiff and his wife in the state of Iowa in the month of March, 1888, by virtue of which he became an heir at law of Margaret James, since deceased. The answer was put in issue by a reply. On the issues thus made a trial was had before the court without a jury, and resulted in a finding and judgment to the effect that the appellant had no interest in the property described in the complaint, and was not entitled to share in its partition.
The trial court rested its decision on a judgment rendered in the superior court of Spokane county in an action in which the respondent was plaintiff and the appellant was one of the defendants, wherein the title to the property was quited in the respondent against any claim or interest of the appellant. The appellant attacks this judgment, we think successfully; but, as the action is one triable de novo in this court, the judgment can be rested on other grounds, if such can be found in the record. We think there is another such ground. The appellant failed to prove that he had any interest in the property sought to be partitioned. His right therein, if any, rested on the claim that he was adopted by the respondent and his then wife, Margaret, in the state of Iowa, in 1888, but the proofs fail to show a valid adoption under the laws of that state. The statute of Iowa in force at the time of the purported adoption, as shown by the record, provided that the act of adoption should be evidenced by an instrument in writing, signed by the parties consenting to the adoption and the parties or party adopting the child, which instrument should state, among other things, the names of the parents of the child, if known, and should be acknowledged by all the parties thereto in the same manner as deeds affecting real estate are required to be acknowledged, and should be recorded in the recorder's office in the county where the person adopting resides. It was further provided that upon the acknowledgment, execution, and filing for record of such instrument the rights, duties, and relations of the parties arose. To prove the adoption in the case before us, the appellant introduced a written instrument substantially complying with the foregoing requisites of the statute (with the exception that it did not state the name of one of the parents of the child, nor that this parent's name was unknown), but there was no proof that it was recorded in the recorder's office of the county where the persons adopting the child resided. That the failure to record the instruments of adoption is fatal to the legality of the proceedings has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court of Iowa while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Succession of D'Asaro
...state has held that attempts similar to this are invalid under its laws, it must follow that this attempt is invalid also.' James v. James, 35 Wash. 650, 77 P. 1080. For the above reasons, the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the exception of no right of action filed by Mrs. Fernande......
-
State v. Stephens
... ... § 1739 (1966) is necessary. In State v. Johnson, 194 Wash. 438, 78 P.2d 561 (1938), the court cited the federal statute and quoted James v. James, 35 Wash. 650. 655, 77 P. 1080 (1904), with approval at 444, 78 P.2d at 564: ... Page 583 ... 'Records from public offices of sister ... ...
-
State v. Johnson, 26861.
...the identity of the individual convicted in the other states, followed exactly the procedure set forth by Congress. In James v. James, 35 Wash. 650, 77 P. 1080, 1082, where the defendant attempted to prove his right to property as an heir at law by offering adoption papers which were copies......
-
State v. Kniffen
...be certified as required by section 906 of the Revised Statutes of the United States [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 677]. James v. James, 35 Wash. 650, 77 P. 1080. It is true the officer making certificate says therein that he is clerk of the circuit court of Bay county, Mich. But he does not ce......