Merritt v. Morton

• Decision Date: 13 April 1911
• Citation: 143 Ky. 133,136 S.W. 133
• Parties: MERRITT v. MORTON et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

136 S.W. 133

143 Ky. 133

MERRITT v. MORTON et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 13, 1911

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County.

Action by Charles William Merritt against Sue Morton administratrix, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Grider & Harlan and Will R. Speck, for appellants.

Rodes &amp Wallace, for appellee.

LASSING J.

The Louisville Baptist Orphans' Home was incorporated by an act of the Legislature January 29, 1870. Its charter was amended by another act of the Legislature of March 19, 1873 and again on January 31, 1880. In 1883 it took into its custody an infant child named Charles Buel Davis, and on the 21st day of November, 1883, it apprenticed this child to W W. Merritt. Under this apprenticeship the infant remained in the custody of Merritt until the 19th day of July, 1884, at which time Merritt and his wife, Carrie Merritt, made and executed a contract of adoption with the said Louisville Baptist Orphans' Home, as provided for and authorized by the act of the Legislature creating said home. After the execution of this contract Merritt and his wife kept and reared the child as their own until he reached his majority. They never had any children born to them. In the year 19__, and prior to 1910, Carrie Merritt, his foster mother, died intestate. In 1910 Sarah E. Morton, the mother of Carrie Merritt, died intestate, possessed of a considerable estate. Claiming that he was entitled to that share in the estate of Sarah E. Morton which his foster mother would have received if living at her death, Charles W. Merritt, the adopted child, brought a suit to recover his interest in her estate. The chancellor was of opinion that he could not inherit from any of the kindred of his foster or adoptive parents, and dismissed his petition. Being dissatisfied with this finding and judgment, he appeals.

So much of the act as bears upon the question at issue is as follows: "Said corporation may through its president or vice president, in the manner prescribed by its by-laws, permit any suitable person to adopt any child in its custody and control, as his or her own child. It may contain all suitable covenants for the care, education, and nurture of such child; and when such instrument shall be so executed and recorded, such child shall become the heir at law of such person so adopting him or her, and be as capable of inheriting as though he or she were the child of said person; and said person shall have the same parental control and be under the same responsibilities as if the child so adopted were his or her own child."

This identical question has not heretofore been presented to this court. In Power v. Hafley, 85 Ky. 671, 4 S.W. 683, 9 Ky. Law Rep. 369, and Atchison v. Atchison Ex'r, ...