Signaigo v. Signaigo
Decision Date | 17 May 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 18,459.,18,459. |
Citation | 205 S.W. 23 |
Parties | SIGNAIGO v. SIGNAIGO et al. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William T. Jones, Judge.
Action by Ralph Signaigo against Mary Signaigo, administratrix, etc., and others, and Edna Amrein. From judgment for defendant Amrein, all other parties appeal. Affirmed.
This is a suit in partition begun December 3, 1909, by Ralph Signaigo against Dominic Signaigo and others, the parties being all the heirs of David J. Signaigo, deceased. He had made a will in favor of his wife on April 19, 1899, but she died July 2, 1909, while his death did not occur until October 30, 1909, so that he practically died intestate. Neither of them left descendants. The parties were his collateral relatives.
An interlocutory decree, directing a sale of the property and appointing a commissioner, was entered June 14, 1911. After the sale was advertised Miss Edna Amrein gave notice of her claim to the property, and on plaintiffs' motion the interlocutory decree was set aside, and on November 9 1911, the plaintiffs with leave filed a third petition, in which Miss Amrein was made a defendant Under the allegation that she claimed some interest in the property not admitted by plaintiff, and asking that she be required to assert any rights she might claim, to be determined by the court. Process issued against her, to which she appeared and answered. Her amended answer, upon which the trial was had, is as follows:
"Defendant further states that when she, the said defendant, was an infant under the age of 14 years, and on, to wit, about the 20th day of June, 1899, the said David J. Signaigo and Mary Signaigo, his wife, took this defendant from the care of her father and mother, Edmund Amrein and Laura F. Amrein, and placed her in their household, where this defendant remained continuously for over a year, during all of which time the said David J. Signaigo and Mary Signaigo, his wife, unceasingly attempted to induce the said Edmund and Laura F. Amrein, who had two other children, to give permission to them, the said David J. and Mary Signaigo, to adopt this defendant and keep her permanently as their child; that although the said Edmund and Laura F. Amrein did not at that time give their express consent to the said David J. and Mary Signaigo to an adoption of this defendant, nevertheless, this defendant consented to and did remain continuously in the household of the said David J. and Mary Signaigo, they claiming her as their adopted child until about the 11th day of October", 1900, when it was expressly agreed by the said Edmund Amrein and his wife, Laura F. Amrein, that this defendant should have permission from him to remain permanently with the said David J. and Mary Signaigo, as their child, but that this defendant should retain, however, the surname of her natural parents. And, in consideration therefor, and of her agreement to live with them as" their child, the said David J. and Mary Signaigo promised this defendant that they would adopt and treat her as their own child and would make her their heir, and that she would receive all their property at their death.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bedal v. Johnson
...... representatives are in no position to do so. ( Kelley v. Devin, 65 Ore. 211, 132 P. 535; Wold v. Wold, . 138 Minn. 409, 165 N.W. 229; Signaigo v. Signaigo. (Mo.), 205 S.W. 23; Evans v. Moore, 247 Ill. 60, 139 Am. St. 302, 93 N.E. 118; Burns v. Smith, 21. Mont. 251, 69 Am. St. 693, 53 ......
-
Bernblum v. Travelers Ins. Co., 34440.
...and 54 A.L.R. 264, for notes discussing Missouri decisions. Other cases approving Wagner v. Binder are Signaigo v. Signaigo (Mo. banc), 205 S.W. 23; Rauch v. Metz (Mo. banc), 212 S.W. 353; O'Neil v. Stratton (C.C.A.), 64 Fed. (2d) 911; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cook-O'Brien Const. Co. (C.C.A......
-
Kidd v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 32096.
...should be taken into account in determining the character and terms of the contract. Fishback v. Prock, 279 S.W. 38; Signaigo v. Signaigo, 205 S.W. 23. (c) The parol contract of adoption could be established by acts and conduct, even if there were no direct evidence of the contract. Drake v......
-
Niehaus v. Madden, 37623.
...assume the name of adoptive parents and to address them as mother and father. Craddock v. Jenkins, 223 S.W. 924; Signaigia v. Signaigia, 205 S.W. 23; Jenkins v. Gordon, 256 S.W. 136; Ahrens v. Matthews, 85 S.W. (2d) 377. (f) Negative evidence to the effect that Henrietta Borck had not told ......