Raymond v. Cooke

• Decision Date: 12 March 1917
• Citation: 226 Mass. 326,115 N.E. 423
• Parties: RAYMOND et al. v. COOKE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

226 Mass. 326

115 N.E. 423

RAYMOND et al.

v.COOKE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

March 12, 1917.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Middlesex County.

Petition by Thomas C. Raymond and others to revoke a probate court decree by which Thorlief S. Cooke was adopted by Mary J. Cooke. From a decree in the Supreme Judicial Court, affirming a probate court decree revoking the adoption, respondent brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

The requests for rulings mentioned in the opinion are as follows:

(4) If the court finds that Thorlief Cooke would have left the employment of Mary Jane Cooke and ceased to live with her if he had not been adopted by her, and finds that Mary Jane Cooke wished Thorlief Cooke to remain in her employment and to live with her without adoption, but preferred to adopt him rather than to have him leave her employment and cease to live with her, this is not sufficient to warrant a finding that the adoption was procured by undue influence.

(5) The fact that Mary Jane Cooke was nearly 70 years of age at the time she adopted Thorlief Cooke, and he was about 30 years of age at the time, does not warrant a finding that the adoption was invalid, and is of itself no evidence of undue influence affecting the adoption.

(6) If Mary Jane Cooke loved Thorlief Cooke so much that she desired to adopt him as her son, and for that reason did adopt him, there was no undue influence exercised by Thorlief, as undue influence in this case must mean the substitution of the will of Thorlief for that of Mary Jane Cooke.

(7) Thorlief Cooke had the right to be kind and affectionate to Mary Jane Cooke, and to treat her with consideration, and to care for her to the best of his ability, and if the exercise of such rights alone influenced Mary Jane Cooke to love him, and to adopt him as her son, a finding of undue influence is not warranted.

(9) On all the evidence in this case the court is not entitled to find that the adoption was procured by the undue influence of Thorlief Cooke.

(10) The motives or reasons Mary Jane Cooke had for making the adoption cannot be made the ground of revoking the decree, even if such motives or reasons were bad, provided such motives and reasons were her own, and not in reality those of Thorlief Cooke.

Fletcher Ranney, Geo. Lemist Clarke, and Jos. K. Hayes, Jr., all of Boston, for petitioners.

Guy W. Cox and Geo. Wm. Estabrook, both of Boston, for respondent.

CARROLL, J.

This is a petition to revoke a decree of the probate court of July 9, 1909, by which the respondent was adopted by Mary J. Cooke, who died September 11, 1912. In the probate court the decree of adoption was revoked, and the respondent appealed. In the Supreme Judicial Court a decree was ordered affirming the decree of the probate court revoking the adoption. The case is before us on the respondent's exceptions.

The respondent argues that the petitioners, who are the heirs at law and next of kin of Mrs. Cooke, have no right or standing to maintain this petition. The petition was filed November 7, 1912, and states that Mrs. Cooke was of weak mind and unduly influenced by the respondent, who concealed these facts, and that the adoption was obtained by fraud practiced on the court. At the time of the filing of the petition the will of Mrs. Cooke had not been allowed. The appellant contested its allowance, claiming it had been revoked by his adoption. It was finally allowed in this court May 12, 1913.

In May, 1914, the executor of the will petitioned the probate court for instructions, alleging that Thorlief S. Cooke, the respondent, claimed the whole estate as the adopted son ‘because insufficiently mentioned in the will as a son.’ He made answer claiming the whole estate on this ground. The petition for instructions is still pending.

In April, 1915, Thorlief S. Cooke, brought action against the executor of the will of Mary J. Cooke, claiming that in consideration of his being adopted, she agreed to leave him all her property. This action also is still pending.

[1] The petitioners are the heirs at law and next of kin of Mrs. Cooke. They allege that fraud was practiced on the probate court. When this petition was filed, Mrs. Cooke's will had not been allowed. They were interested in her...