Watts v. Dull

• Decision Date: 19 February 1900
• Citation: Watts v. Dull, 184 Ill. 86, 56 N.E. 303 (Ill. 1900)
• Parties: WATTS v. DULL et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

184 Ill. 86

56 N.E. 303

WATTS

v.DULL et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 19, 1900.

Error to circuit court, McDonough county; John A. Gray, Judge.

Bill by Sarah E. Watts against D. B. Dull and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Frank B. Wetzel and Conrad G. Gumbart, for plaintiff in error.

Lyman B. Vose and H. M. Tabler, for defendants in error.

This is a bill filed on January 6, 1899, by the plaintiff in error, Sarah E. Watts, against the defendant in error D. B. Dull, and ot alleging that one Catherine Jarvis died intestate on January 15, 1890, owning a certain tract of 40 acres of land in McDonough county; that the plaintiff in error was the adopted child of Catherine Jarvis, and her only heir at law; that shortly after the death of Catherine Jarvis, who left no child or children, or descendant or descendants of any child or children, unless plaintiff in error was her legally adopted child, her collateral heirs and her insane husband, by his conservator, Richard Breeden, instituted proceedings for the partition of said land; that as a result thereof of the land was sold on April 11, 1891, by the master in chancery of the court, to the defendant in error D. B. Dull, to whom a master's deed was executed on October 12, 1892, and the same was recorded on February 3, 1893; that plaintiff in error was not made a party to said proceedings, and had no notice thereof; that afterwards D. B. Dull and Sarah Dull and Margaret Dull mortgaged the land to James Allen, one of the defendants in error, without the consent of the plaintiff in error; that D. B. Dull has been in possession and received the rents, profits, and income from said land since he obtained the master's deed; that plaintiff in error has been diligent in her endeavor to secure her rights. And the bill prays for division and partition, and for the setting off of the widower's dower, and for an accounting of the rents, income, and profits, and that the master's deed, and the mortgage of D. B. Dull to James Allen, be set aside and canceled as to plaintiff in error. Answer was filed by the defendants below denying the legality of the adoption of plaintiff in error, and her right to an accounting, and setting up the making of permanent and lasting improvements, and possession by D. B. Dull since the master's sale. The answer also pleads the statute of limitations, and avers laches on the part of plaintiff in error. It was stipulated that Ephraim Jarvis, the insane widower of Catherine Jarvis, deceased, died on May 17, 1899. A supplemental bill was then filed, alleging the death of Ephraim Jarvis, and that by said death plaintiff in error become sole owner of the land, because of the extinguishment of the dower, and praying for the entire title, together with surrender of possession, and for other equitable relief. An answer was filed to the supplemental bill, admitting the extinguishment of dower, but denying that, by reason of the death of Ephraim Jarvis, plaintiff in error became entitled to any interest in the land, and setting up the statute of limitations and laches. A reference was had to a master, who took testimony, which was used and considered by the court as evidence in the case. The original name of the plaintiff in error was Sarah Elizabeth Gossage, and after the decree of adoption, declaring her to be the adopted child of Catherine Jarvis, she was known as Sarah Elizabeth Jarvis. She subsequently married one Clarence Watts.

The following were the decree of adoption entered by the county court of McDonough county, and the petition for said adoption which was filed in said court:

‘State of Illinois, McDonough County-ss.: In the County Court of McDonough County, February Term, A. D. 1881. In the Matter of the Petition of Catherine Jarvis for an Order Declaring Sarah E. Gossage to be Her Adopted Child. And now on this day the above cause coming on to be heard upon the petition and proofs adduced in support of the facts therein stated, and it appearing to the court, from the petition and evidence herein, that said petitioner is a resident of said county, and desires to adopt said child; that said child is a female, and of the age of ten years on the 26th day of July, A. D. 1881; and, further, that said petitioner desires the name of said child changed to that of Sarah Elizabeth Jarvis; that the father of said child is dead, but the mother has deserted said child; said petitioner is the wife of Ephraim Jarvis, who is insane, and is at the present time an inmate of the insane asylum, and that said petitioner is the conservator of said Ephraim Jarvis; and that it would, therefore, be to the interest of said child to be the adopted child of said petitioner,-it is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court that the said Sarah E. Gossage be the adopted child of said petitioner, and capable of inheriting her estate; that the name of said child be changed to that of Sarah Elizabeth Jarvis; and that said petitioner pay the costs of this proceeding. J. H. Baker, County Judge.’

‘State of Illinois, McDonough County-ss.: In the County Court, February Term, A. D. 1881. To the Honorable J. H. Baker, Judge of Said Court: Your petitioner, Catherine Jarvis, of Tennessee, in said county, would respectfully show unto your honor that she is a resident of said county, and desirous of adopting a child, so as to render it capable of inheriting her estate; that the name of said child is Sarah E. Gossage; that it was of the age of ten years on the 26th day of July next, and it is a female child; and, further, that your petitioner desires the name of said child changed to that of Sarah Elizabeth Jarvis. Your petitioner would further show unto your honor that the father of said child is dead, but the mother has deserted the child; and, further, that your petitioner is the wife of Ephraim Jarvis, who is insane, and is at the present time at the insane asylum at Jacksonville, and that your petitioner is the conservator of said Ephraim Jarvis; and that it would, therefore, be to the interest of said child to become the adopted child of your petitioner. Your petitioner would therefore pray this honorable court to make an order declaring said child to be the adopted child of your petitioner, and capable of inheriting her estate, and that the name of said child be changed to that of Sarah Elizabeth Jarvis, as provided by the act of the general assembly of the state of Illinois approved February 27, A. D. 1874. Catherine Jarvis.

‘State of Illinois, McDonough County-ss.: Catherine Jarvis, the above-named petitioner, being duly sworn, deposes and says that the facts contained in the above petition by her subscribed are true, according to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. Catherine Jarvis.

‘Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of March, A. D. 1881. C. W. Dines.

‘Filed March 13, 1881. C. W. Dines, County Clerk.’

After hearing had, the court below entered a decree dismissing the original and supplemental bills for want of equity, at the cost of complainant, to the rendition of which decree plaintiff in error excepted. The present appeal is prosecuted from the decree of dismissal so entered by the circuit court.

MAGRUDER, J. (after stating the facts).

It is necessary to consider only one question in this case, and that relates to the validity of the proceedings, instituted in the county court of McDonough county by Catherine Jarvis for the adoption of the plaintiff in error as her child. If the decree of adoption was valid, then the partition proceeding instituted by the collateral heirs of Catherine Jarvis and the conservator of her insane husband, Ephraim Jarvis, was invalid, because the plaintiff in error, as the legally adopted child of Mrs. Jarvis, was not made a party thereto. In such case the master's deed executed to the defendant in error D. B. Dull in pursuance of the sale had under the partition proceedings conferred no title, and was void. On the contrary, if the decree of adoption was void for want of jurisdiction in the court which rendered it, then plaintiff in error, not being the legally adopted child of Catherine Jarvis, inherited no interest in the land from her, and the title of the defendant in error D. B. Dull is a good title.

The present statute of Illinois in relation to the adoption of children was approved on February 27, 1874, and went into force on July 1, 1874. 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.) p. 353. The right of adoption, as conferred by this statute, was unknown to the common law, and is taken from the Roman law. Being in derogation of the common law, it is a special power conferred by statute, and the rule is that such statutes must be strictly construed. Brown v. Barry, 3 Dall. 365, 1 L. Ed. 638; Dwar. St. 257; Furgeson v. Jones, 17 Or. 204, 20 Pac. 842. In Keegan v. Geraghty, 101 Ill. 26, we said of the act of 1874 (page 39): ‘As against the adopted child, the statute should be strictly construed, because it is in derogation of the general law of inheritance, which is founded on natural relationship, and is a rule of succession according to nature, which has prevailed from time immemorial.’ The county courts in this state, in the exercise of the common-law jurisdiction conferred by statute, are entitled to the same presumptions in favor of their jurisdiction as are the circuit courts. Anderson v. Gray, 134 Ill. 550, 25 N. E. 843. But a court of general jurisdiction may have special powers conferred upon it by special statute; and, as these powers are...