Milton v. Summers
| Decision Date | 22 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 277 |
| Citation | 190 So.2d 540,280 Ala. 106 |
| Parties | Abie G. MILTON v. Fannie Butrus SUMMERS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Earl McBee and Ferris S. Ritchey, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Rogers, Howard, Redden & Mills, Birmingham, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decree investing the petitioner, Fannie Butrus Summers, with the rights of a child in the assets of the estate of Fahima Nohra Butrus as though petitioner were the sole legal heir of Fahima Nohra Butrus, deceased, and her husband, Elias Butrus, who predeceased Fahima Nohra Butrus by some nine years.
The decree also removed Abie G. Milton as administrator of the estate of Fahima Nohra Butrus, upon full accounting of his acts as administrator, and appointed Fannie Butrus Summers as administratrix of such estate.
The basis of petitioner's asserted right to such relief is that Elias Butrus and Fahima Nohra Butrus, his wife, entered into an agreement to adopt the petitioner upon her being turned over to the Butruses when she was an infant about three months old.
The evidence is uncontradicted that in 1916, the Butruses were residing in Central City, Kentucky. The petitioner, Fannie Butrus Summers, is the child of Mr. and Mrs. Milton Saab. Mrs. Saab was a sister of Elias Butrus. Mrs. Saab died, apparently at the time of, or shortly after, the birth of the petitioner. It was under these conditions that the petitioner was delivered to the keeping of the Butruses.
As to the terms under which this arrangement was completed, the evidence is in conflict.
That presented by the petitioner was to the effect that upon Mr. Saab agreeing to relinquish all future claims to the custody of petitioner, the Butruses agreed to adopt the petitioner as their child and heir.
The evidence presented by the respondent below is directed toward showing that the Butruses agreed only to take the petitioner into their custody for the purpose of raising and caring for her, but not for the purpose of making petitioner their legal heir.
The evidence, we think, is overwhelming that during their life time Mr. and Mrs. Butrus did treat the petitioner as a daughter. She was known as Fannie Butrus, entered school and was married under that name, and was considered by the community to be the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Butrus.
However, at the threshold of our consideration of this appeal, we are met with certain well settled conflict of laws doctrines which necessitate a reversal of the decree entered by the Chancellor.
The agreement to adopt, even under appellee's contentions, was made in Kentucky. The law of Kentucky as to adoption, and the legal effect of adoption in this state, was not averred in the appellee's pleading, and no evidence as to such Kentucky law was introduced.
'The conflict of laws rules established by our decisions as to the presumption of the laws of a sister state, when such laws are not pleaded and proved, depends upon the origin of the sister state.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.L. v. V.L. (Ex parte E.L.)
...v. DeLoach, Admr., 84 Ala. 393, 4 So. 757 [ (1888) ]; Franklin v. White, 263 Ala. 223, 82 So.2d 247 [ (1955) ]; Milton v. Summers, 280 Ala. 106, 190 So.2d 540 [ (1966) ]."Alabama has unequivocally held that adoption is a purely statutory right; an Alabamian's right to adopt does not exist a......
-
Hanks v. Hanks
...the rules of common law. Abney v. DeLoach, Admr., 84 Ala. 393, 4 So. 757; Franklin v. White, 263 Ala. 223, 82 So.2d 247; Milton v. Summers, 280 Ala. 106, 190 So.2d 540. The alleged agreement of adoption, if any, was in June 1931, and is therefore governed by Section 9302, Chapter 326, Code ......
-
Hebert v. Stephenson
...state of Georgia with the mother and the stepfather, Georgia law regarding adoption should apply. The father cites Milton v. Summers, 280 Ala. 106, 190 So.2d 540 (1966), to support this In Milton, an alleged adoption took place in the state of Kentucky. The supreme court applied the law of ......
-
C & C Products, Inc. v. Premier Indus. Corp.
...presumption indulged is that the law of such sister state is the same as the law of Alabama, including our statutory law. Milton v. Summers, 280 Ala. 106, 190 So.2d 540. Where, however, the law of a sister state concerns a business corporation, and the law of such sister state is not pleade......