Quinn v. Quinn
Decision Date | 26 April 1894 |
Citation | 5 S.D. 328,58 N.W. 808 |
Parties | CHARLIE FULLER QUINN, Plaintiff and respondent, v. QUINN, Defendant and appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County, S.D.
Affirmed
Davis, Lyon & Gates, Sioux Falls, S.D.
Attorneys for appellant.
Opinion filed April 26, 1894
The complaint in this action is very lengthy, and we shall only attempt to give the substance, except as to two paragraphs, which we deem specially important. In October. 1868, the plaintiff, being a little over nine years of age, was adopted by Hollis S. Quinn, the husband of the defendant, by virtue of statutory proceedings, in the state of Illinois; the plaintiff’s mother, then a widow, consenting thereto. It is alleged in the complaint: That Quinn was desirous of adopting the plaintiff as a child of his own, and making him one of his heirs at law, and bestowing upon him all the rights, privileges, and emoluments that he could enjoy and could be entitled to had he been born to the said Quinn as his own child; and
That such proceedings were had that an order was made, the material parts of which are as follows:
That thereafter the plaintiff remained in the family of said Quinn until about July 15, 1880, when he attained his majority. That while he so remained with said Quinn he was required to and did perform much hard manual labor, and largely aided said Quinn in acquiring a property which amounted to about $15,000. That said Quinn died in Sioux Falls, in this state, in 1891, leaving the defendant, who is the widow of said Quinn, two daughters, and this plaintiff his sole heirs at law. The complaint then alleges that said Quinn, prior to his death, entered into an unlawful and corrupt agreement with the defendant to place his property in a condition so that this plaintiff could not reach the same, and have said property in such condition that the plaintiff could not inherit the same; and that in pursuance of such corrupt and unlawful agreement the said Quinn did convey and transfer to the defendant large portions of his property without consideration, and just prior to his death made a will, by which he gave, bequeathed and devised to said defendant the residue of his estate, real and personal, for the express purpose of defeating this plaintiff. The plaintiff prays judgment that the said conveyances and transfers from said Quinn to the defendant, so far as they effect his interests, be set aside, and that plaintiff’s right to one-third of two-thirds of said property be decreed to him, etc. To this complaint the defendant interposed a demurrer, on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appeals, assigning as error the overruling of said demurrer.
The principal ground relied on by appellant for a reversal of the order of the court below is that by the complaint it affirmatively appears that the agreement alleged to have been made by said Quinn with the mother of the plaintiff at the time of his adoption was not in writing, and was therefore invalid.
The respondent contends that the fact that the plaintiff is heir of Quinn is conclusively established by the order. We fully agree with counsel in this contention. The order is that said plaintiff “shall be capable of inheriting the estate of said Hollis S. Quinn,” and “that henceforward the relation between the said Hollis S. Quinn and said adopted child … shall be, as to their legal rights and liabilities, the same as if the relation of parent and child existed between them.” It is true that neither in the recitals in the order nor in the order itself is there any allusion to any contract other than that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial