Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1904-02-01

children, certain grand children, con,
tains certain other small legacieS
and gives the bulk of the property to
the widow No mention, directly OF
indirectly, is made in the will of the
adopted daughter who survived him
and is now about IA years OF
age. There is some $4,000 personal
property, together with considerable
real estate in several counties of this
state and some in Kansas, Minneso
Ia and California. The question 20
be determined is whether .he adopt
ed daughter is entitled to share in
his estate, under Section 1886, Wis
consin statutes, which provides that
when any child shall be born after
the making of his parents viii and
no provision shall be made therein
for him, such child shall have the
same share in the estate of the tesla,
tor as if he had died intestate'
unless it shall be apparent from the
will that it was the intention of the
testator that no provision should be
made for such child This statute
must be considered in connection
with Section 1924 which provides
that a legally adopted child shall be
deemed for the purposes of inherit
ance and succession .. .'and
all other legal consequences and in
cidents of the natural relation of pa
rents and children the same to all
intents and purposes as if the child
had been born in lawful wedlock of
such parents by adoption
THE legal point involved in this
case has never been directly passed
upon by our supreme court. The ap-
pellate court has, however. in the
comparatively recent case of Glas-
colt VS.. Bragg, Ill Wis, 609, decid-
ed that the marriage of the testator
and adoption of a child subsequent
to the making of the will has the
same force and effect as to revoking
a will made prior to such marriage
as the marriage and birth of child
has on a will made prior thereto In
so determining the court has appar-
emily placed an adopted child upon
the same basis with a born child in
all matters relating to inheritance ex-
cept as to property expressly limit
ed to the heirs of the body
1.-The courts in New York, Indiana
and California seem to have deter
mined the question at issue adversely
to an adopted child but upon stat
utes different from our own. In
Iowa, the same question has been de-
cided in favor of an adopted child
upon a statute much more similar to
our own. The most recent case on
this question seems to be that of
Flanningan VS.. Howard, 200 H., 396.
upon statutes, both as to adoption
and provision for an afterborn child
identical in substance with and quite
similar in language to our own. The
Illinois court squarely decided that a
child adopted after the making of
the will stands in precisely the same
relation with the same privileges "a
child born after the making of his
parents will. 1t may be observed
that in Illinois, as we'll as in Wis
consin, it must be apparent from
the will that no provision was in
tended to be made. If none is made.
for such child. This practically, in
terms, excludes any other evidence
than the will itself in determining
the intention of the testator in the
premises. Taking into consideration
the force of the Illinois case directly
determining the proposition on prac-
tically the same statutes. and the
reasoning and decision of the Wis
consin case placing the subsequent
birth in the same category with sub
sequent adoption, and, considering
the fact that the intention must be
ascertained from the will,-there
seems no escape from the conclusion
that Ella Sandon is entitled to the
same share out of the estate she
would have received had Robert San
don died intestate.
Judgment is so ordered, and the
method of distribution to be as pre-
scribed in such cases by Section
22SS."