R.I. Hosp. Trust Co. v. Humphrey

• Decision Date: 25 May 1911
• Citation: 79 A. 829,32 R.I. 318
• Parties: RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO. v. HUMPHREY et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

79 A. 829

32 R.I. 318

RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST CO.

v. HUMPHREY et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 25, 1911.

Case certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Willard B. Tanner, Presiding Justice.

Bill by Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company against Sarah L. Humphrey and others. On certificate from the superior court. Decree directed.

See, also, 78 Atl. 625.

James Tillnighast, for complainant.

Barney & Lee, for respondent Sarah L. Humphrey.

DUBOIS, C. J This is a bill in equity, involving the construction of the will of Alexander Hawkins, late of Providence, deceased, certified to this court from the superior court as being ready for hearing for final decree, under the provisions of Gen. Laws 1909, c. 289, § 35.

It appears: That said Alexander Hawkins died on the 11th day of December, 1894, leaving a last will, which on the 8th day of January, 1895, was duly admitted to final probate, and now remains of record, in the municipal court of said city of Providence. That in and by his said will the said Alexander Hawkins made the following bequest: "To said Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company twenty-five six per cent. bonds of the state of North Carolina payable in 1919, together of the par value of twenty-five thousand dollars, in trust, to pay the net income thereof, as often at least as once in every six months, to my sister Ann, wife of George W. Humphrey, of said Providence, for her own sole and separate use, and without the power on her part to alienate or anticipate the same during her life; and upon her death to pay out, divide and distribute the principal of this trust fund to and among my own then surviving next of kin according to the statutes of distribution of intestate estates then in force in this state, and in the proportions and shares that they would then be entitled to the same from me according to the same statutes had I then deceased intestate possessed of the same." That said Ann Humphrey—generally known as Annie S. Humphrey—died at Warwick, in this state, on the 20th day of June, 1909, testate, without leaving any issue of her body, but leaving surviving her the respondent Sarah L. Humphrey, who, by virtue of a decree of the municipal court of the city of Providence, exercising probate jurisdiction, entered on the 12th day of April, 1895, was adopted by the said Annie S. Humphrey and her husband, since deceased, as their daughter. Said Sarah L. Humphrey claims "that as such adopted daughter she is one of the next of kin of the said Alexander Hawkins, and as such is entitled to a distributive share in the trust fund in said bill referred to, to wit, to a one-sixth share thereof."

It is to be noted that the respondent Sarah L. Humphrey makes no claim of kinshop by consanguinity to the testator, Alexander Hawkins, but bases her contention solely upon her status as the daughter by adoption of the said Annie S. Humphrey and her husband. This presents the following question for our determination: Hid Annie S. Humphrey, the sister of the testator, artificially increase the number of his next of lain, after his decease and the probate of his will, by the adoption of a child?

The statute, under whose provisions the adoption was effected, is Pub. Stats. 1882, c. 164 (substantially re-enacted in Gen. Laws 1909, c. 244), which, after prescribing the procedure to be followed by petitioners thereunder to obtain a decree of adoption, and the conditions under which the decree may be made, defines the effect of such decree upon the property rights of the adopted child, as follows: "Sec. 7. A child so adopted shall be deemed, for the purposes of inheritance by such child and all other legal consequences and incidents of the natural relation of parents and children, the child of the parents by adoption, the same as if he had been born to them in lawful wedlock, except that he shall not be capable of taking property expressly limited to the heirs of the body or bodies of the parents by adoption, nor property from the lineal or collateral kindred of such parents by right of representation." The foregoing statute was first introduced into this state as Pub. Laws, c. 627, passed March 26, 1866, and its provisions are almost identical with those contained in Gen. Stat. Mass. 1860, c. 110, §§ 1 to 10, inclusive, and section 13.

The last-named statute was construed by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the case of Sewall v. Roberts, 115 Mass. 262, 276: "This language is very broad and...