Murphy v. Portrum

• Decision Date: 14 November 1895
• Citation: 32 S.W. 633,95 Tenn. 605
• Parties: MURPHY et al. v. PORTRUM.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

32 S.W. 633

95 Tenn. 605

MURPHY et al. v. PORTRUM.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 14, 1895

Appeal from chancery court, Hamblen county; John K. Shields Chancellor.

Bill by C. K. Murphy and another against Samuel Portrum to quiet title. From decree for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

A. D Huffmaster and Shields & Mountcastle, for appellant.

James G. Rose and W. S. Dickson, for appellee Murphy.

WILKES J.

The very interesting question is presented in this case as to the effect of certain proceedings had in the circuit court of Hamblen county to have Charles J. Portrum adopted and legitimated as the child of John Portrum; the query being whether the property of said Charles J., upon his death without issue brothers, or sisters, went to his mother, Catherine Noe, or to the brothers and sisters of John Portrum, the adopting parent. Complainants are purchasers from Catherine Noe, the mother of the said Charles J., and the defendants are the brothers and sisters of John Portrum, the adopting father. The bill was demurred to, and demurrer overruled; the chancellor being of opinion that the mother inherited the property from her son, and had good title to it. Defendants refusing to answer or make further defense, final decree was entered fixing the rights of the parties, and defendants appealed and assigned errors. The cause has been heard by the court of chancery appeals, and that court has affirmed the chancellor's decree, and defendants have appealed to this court.

The facts are that John Portrum died intestate and unmarried, leaving brothers and sisters and other collateral kin, and also Charles J. Portrum, reputed to be his son, and so recognized and acknowledged by him; the mother being Catherine Noe, an unmarried woman. John Portrum, at the December term, 1877, of the circuit court of Hamblen county, instituted proceedings in that court to have said Charles J. legitimated and adopted as his lawful heir. Petition was filed, summons issued and was served on the mother and child, guardian ad litem was appointed, and the cause was heard. The decree sets out the petition in full, the substance being that petitioner was desirous of adopting and legitimating said Charles J., so as to create the relation of parent and child between him and petitioner; the child being then about four years old, and living with its father, and the mother being in poor circumstances, and having relinquished her claims to the custody of the child. The prayer was for a proper judgment of legitimation and adoption, fully legitimating the child, and making it the child of petitioner, by the name of Charles John Portrum, giving to the child all the rights and privileges of a legitimate child, with capacity to inherit and succeed to the real and personal estate of petitioner, as his heir and next of kin, and for general relief. The decree recites that the court was fully satisfied with the reasons assigned in the petition for the adoption of the child as prayed for in the petition by the name of Charles John Portrum, and adjudges and decrees that his adoption as prayed for be sanctioned by the court, and proceeds to vest the child with all the rights and privileges of a child of said John Portrum, with capacity to inherit and succeed to the real and personal estate of said John Portrum, as his heir and next of kin, in case of his intestacy, and changing his name to Charles John Portrum, etc. Upon the death of John Portrum his adopted son, Charles, took possession of his estate, and subsequently died, unmarried and intestate, and without issue; and his mother, the said Catherine Noe, claims the property, against the brothers and sisters of the adopting father, and has sold two pieces of the real estate to complainants Murphy & Rippetoe.

The first error assigned is that the judgment of legitimation or adoption was not valid; and, second, that if valid the mother could not inherit from the child property derived from the adopting parent, but the property would go to the next of kin of the father, John Portrum. There can be no question but that under Mill. & V. Code, §§ 4381, 4385-4391, the circuit...