Leonard v. Honisfager

Decision Date30 April 1909
Docket NumberNo. 6,651.,6,651.
Citation43 Ind.App. 607,88 N.E. 91
CourtIndiana Appellate Court


Appeal from Circuit Court, Spencer County; Roscoe Kiper, Judge.

Application by John Honisfager and others for the adoption of Agnes Egnew, to which John T. Leonard filed objections. From an order granting the petition, objector appeals. Dismissed.

Francis J. Reinhard, Archibald Stevenson, Elbert M. Swan, and William C. Mason, for appellant. B. F. Huffman, for appellee.


The appellees filed in the court below their petition, in due form, for the adoption of a six year old child by the name of Agnes Egnew. The petition set forth the fact that the father and mother of the child were both dead; that the petitioners had cared for it since the death of its mother, which occurred when the child was a few months old; that the petitioners were amply able to properly care for and educate said child; and said petition in all respects conforms to the requirements of the statute on the subject. The appellant had previously to the filing of the petition been duly appointed guardian of the child, and upon the filing of the petition the court ordered notice given him of the pendency of the same. He appeared, and on his petition the court permitted him to file an answer to appellee's petition. The matter was heard, and upon hearing the evidence the court made the proper order for the adoption by appellees of said child, and from this order appellant appeals.

It is insisted here that the order of the court in the premises is erroneous, for the reason that it was made without the consent, and over the objection, of the appellant; it being appellant's contention that before the court was authorized to make the order the consent of the appellant, as guardian of the child, must have been given, that, it being shown that the parents of the child were both dead, he, as its legal guardian, occupied their place, and was clothed with all their rights, duties, and authority.

Numerous decisions of courts of other states have been cited in support of appellant's contention. The subject of the adoption of children is governed exclusively by statute, and the statutory provisions of the different states on the subject are so widely variant that the decisions of the courts of other states construing their statutes on the subject can afford little or no light on the proper construction to be given our own. In fact, the provisions of our...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Adoption of Cheney, In re
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • July 17, 1953
    ...parent not having custody or at the court's discretion where both parents are dead or have abandoned the child. In Leonard v. Honisfager, 43 Ind.App. 607, 88 N.E. 91, the guardian of a minor appeared in answer to a petition for adoption, alleging his consent was necessary. The Indiana appel......
  • Adoption of Bryant, In re
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 19, 1963
    ...of home and parental care may be afforded the benefits of an adoptive home and parental care citing the case of Leonard v. Honisfager (1909), 43 Ind.App. 607, 609, 88 N.E. 91, and further that . . . 'the statute is not to be so strictly construed as to defeat its purposes. * * *' Emmons v. ......
  • Adoption of Taylor, In re
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 1984
    ...illustrative cases are In re Cormack, 110 Kan. 231, 203 P. 297; Deffenbaugh v. Roden, 182 Ark. 348, 31 S.W.2d 406; and Leonard v. Honisfager, 43 Ind.App. 607, 88 N.E. 91." For other cases which deal with grandparental rights in such matters as adoption, child custody, and visitation, see Ae......
  • Adoption of Sheeks, Matter of
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 30, 1976
    ...order of the court, it must be borne in mind that adoption proceedings are in the great majority of cases ex parte. Leonard v. Honisfager, 1909, 43 Ind.App. 607, 88 N.E. 91; Johnson v. Smith, 1931, 203 Ind. 214, 176 N.E. 705. Such proceedings only become adversary where, as in this case, th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT