The Pacific commercial advertiser., 1900-12-28
GETS
NO SHARE.
An Adoption Creates No
Rights as Heir.
| MRS, WILHELM'S ESTATE
She Took an Infant To Raise Who
Claimed Part Of Her
Property.

legal question OF considerable mo-
ment and interest which has been be-
fore the courts Of Hawaii for p year
and half was answered yesterday by
decision of the Supreme bench.
10 arose IN the case of an adopted
child % n Honolulu couple for wror
after his foster months death n claim
was laid 90 n share Of the estate. The \
Circuit Court before which the matter /
was brought found that the ado pted /
child had no rights of Inheritance ard |
an appeal was taken to the supreme /
Court. Yesterday the Supreme COURT
affirmed the decree.
Judge Perry. who writes the decilirn.
reviews The case Interestingly Mrs.
Kamila wilhelm died In June. 1890.
possessed % considerable property IN
the Islands Surviving her were hc-
husband. one child. Libby Ulii Smithies
aged g years. and the adopted son.
known as Frederick Albert Smith VII
helm. who was 2 years old.
Upon the hearing Of the petition -
the administrator OF the estate foe ap-
rrovni of his accounts. the Circuit
4 Judge held that the baby was emitted
to nothing from Mrs. wilhelm's estate.
l The guardian Of the infant appealed
from this finding.
n seems that on July 12. 1897 writ
ten agreement providing for the adcp-
tion Of the child was executed by the
parents and the wilhelms. one clau4e
of which was. And the said wilhelms
agree 90 take the child I'm adoption as
their son. 90 mature. care for. educate.
and IN all respects 90 provide for him
as " he were their own issue"
This agreement was certified 70 be-
fore n Circuit Judge.
The guardian of the child. after Mrs
wuheiu's death. contended that by the
agreement the infant was entitled e
inherit from the adopted mother az ore
OF her children"
The supreme Court quotes many deci
sions pertinent 20 the case and In clos
ing Judge Perry says:
To summarize. then. the Hawaiian
decisions on the subject, In two cases J
4 has been held that the adopted chill
ala not inherit from the adoptel
iii where the agreement OF adoption di
u not specifically provide that such chill
was To- have rights of inheritance. an
nc decision has been rendered TO IN
contrary.
Adoption. while II existed under th
vlcivil law. was unknown under the cor
mon law. and I'm those states where IN
lIatter prevails exists only by virtue
statutory enactmentS. IneSe statut'
tsse. for example. those Of Massachl
setts. Illinois. Indiana. Pennsylvani
m New Hampshire and Michigan) not OF
III lIy provide n method or methods wher
by adoption may be accomplished b'
specifically declare that children adop
cd in conformity Herewith shall ha'
lcertafn rights % inheritance from the
~ ladopters. these provisions as TO inhe
litance differing 90 some extent i'm dine
ent states. We have no statute decla
ing. In terms. what rights OF tnheri
ance from It's adopter. II any. an adop
I'd child shall have.
IL is settled by former dec
sions that an adopted chi
does not inherit from its adopter whe
the agreement Of adoption. as IN {
ease at bar does not clearly and 81
letfcaIly provide that the child shi
have such right of Inheritance. t
question of whether or not. where I
larticfes or decree Of adoption give
.lattempt 90 give 20 the child the sai
rights of inheritance from its adopt
that the Iatter's own children posse
and the adopter dies intestate. su
child comes within the meaning OF
terms children" and Issue as us
IN the statute % descent. or otherw
inherits from its adopter. is not bef'
~ and no opinion IL expressed there'
The decree of adoption in the case
bar-assuming that the order endors
with the certificate Of Acknowledged
was n valid. judicial decree-clea
ans. provided for an adoption no broader
"A different In its terms than that effec'
lou by the agreement. and does
!, strengthcn the case for the appellant
y The dscrce appealed from Is affirm