The Republican journal., 1913-01-09

March oath, in the year of our Lord
1864, is the heir of his parents who inter-
marry And any such child born at any
time is the heir of his mother. And, pro-
vided the father of an illegitimate child
adopts him or her into his family or in
writing acknowledges before some JUS
tice of the peace or notary public, that
he is the father, such child is also the
heir of his or her father. And in either
of the foregoing cases, such child and Its
issue shall inherit from its parents re-
spectively, and from their lineal and col
lateral kindred and these from such child
and its issue the same as if legitimate.
Whatever rights the plaintiff has are
derived from legislative enactment Al
common law his father was incapable OF
inheriting. Statutes similar to the statute
of Nevada, presented in the agreed
statement, have been passed upon IN
many States, and it has been invariably
held that a statute allowing an illegiti-
mate child to inherit from his mother
does not allow him to inherit from her
lineal or collateral kindred. 5 eye. GAO,
64l; Messer VS.. Jones, SO Maine, 349;
Pratt VS.. Atwood, 10S, Mass. 40; Moore
VS.. Moore, IS VT. SO; Bacon VS.. Mcbride,
80 Vt. 595; Stevenson's heirs VS.. Sulll-
want, 5 Wheaton POT. In the same au-
thorities, the rule requiring strict con-
struction of statutes is emphasized. APP
plying the rule to the statute of Nevada,
it is clear that the words "the same as
if born in lawful wedlock" do not in this
case enlarge the rights of the plaintiff to
include inheritance from lineal or collat-
eral kindred. Pratt VS.. Atwood, supra.
Prior to the Act of 1887, Oh. IA, supra,
The laws of Maine were practically the
same as the present State of Nevada,
and ilegitimate children could not inherit
from lineal or collateral kindred. That
act was passed for the express purpose
of removing such disability. Messer VS..
Jones, 50 Maine, 349; Lawton VS.. Lane,
80 Maine, ITO.
But the plaintiff cannot invoke the aid
of the present statute of Maine to con-
troll or in any manner influence the dis
tribution of personal estate of an lntes-
tate whose domicile was in the State of
Nevada. By the weight of authority as
all rights of inheritance become vested
at the death of the person from whom
they are derived, the statutes in force at
the time of his death govern the DISPOSE
ton of the estate. Hughes VS.. Decker,
80 Maine, 1853; Messer VS.. Jones, supra;
IA Cyc 20 and cases cited.
The succession to and disposition and
distribution of personal property wher.
ever situated is governed by the law OF
the domicie of the owner or intestate at
the time of his death, without regard to
the location of the property or the place
of the death. IA Cyc. 81; and cases
cited. Ross VS.. Ross, 1923 Mass. PAS.
And, too, as general rule, legitimacy is
to be ascertained by the law OF the
domicile. Ross VS.. Ross, supra.
All distributive shares must be deter
mined in the Probate Court before they
become payable to the dlstrlbutee.
HAYES VS.. William, 92 Maine, 1872; Graf
fam VS.. Ray, 81 Maine, 234.
So far as the case shows, the plaintiff
did not apply to the probate court III the
State of Nevada for a decree in MS IA
vor. 1t is apparent that he has no rem
edy in this State, even upon proof of the
relationship claimed by him. In accord
ance with the stipulation in the agreed
statement. the entry will be,
Plaintiff non-sult