Case Name: Moran, Appellant, v. Moran
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1899-07-12
Citations: 151 Mo. 558
Docket Number: 
Parties: Moran, Appellant, v. Moran.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Moran, Appellant, v. Moran.
Division. One,
July 12, 1899.
Adopted Children: capable op inheriting by deed. M. and his wife adopted two. boys, one over and the other under age, “as our children, heirs and devisees, together with all the reciprocal relations of parents and children, with rights of inheritance and succession to any and all our estates, personal and real, to which we or either of us may die seized, to the same extent and to all intents and purposes as though they were our 'natural children and the offspring of our own body.” The wife 'died, and the plaintiff became M.’s second wife, and after his death claimed one-half his estate in lieu ox dower. Held, that by this deed of adoption the two boys were capable of inheriting M.’s property, within the meaning of the statute, and therefore his widow could not take one-half his estate.
Appeal from Andrew Circuit Court. — IIon. William S. Herndon, Judge.
Affirmed.
David Eea and Jas. E. Pitt for appellan
An adult can not be adopted in this State. The word “child” in the first section of the act of 1857 is used in the sense of minor, and the words “heir and devisee” used to indicate a person who may take an estate after death, and by virtue of a written instrument. In Eosburgh v. Eogers, 114 Mo. 122, it was held that a beneficiary in a deed executed as ..the one at bar, was a child within the statute of descents, and . in Moran v. Stewart, 122 Mo. 295, following that case, it was held that such a person is a child within the dower act. Both •of these cases, however, are opposed upon principle, if not in terms, to E cinders v. Koppelman, 68 Mo. 482, and In re Clements, 78 Mo. 352. •
P. Mercer and Booher & Williams for respondent.
This is the same case decided in this court in the case of Moran v. Stewart, 122 Mo. 295, except that the defendant is another devisee of David Moran. See, also, Moran v. Stewart, 132 Mo. 12.

Opinion:
VALLIANT, J.
This is an action of ejectment for an undivided half of certain land in Andrew County devised to defendant under the will of David Moran, deceased, who in liia lifetime was the husband of plaintiff.
The state of facts on which the plaintiff claims title to an undivided half of the land in suit is exactly the same state of facts on which she predicated her claim ' to one-half of the personal estate of her late husband in the case just decided,, styled In re estate of David Moran; Angie Moran, appellant, and reported on page 555 of this volume. It is only necessary to refer to the statement of facts in the opinion in that case for a 'full understanding of the appellant's claim in this case.
It is -also the same claim of the same plaintiff which passed under the judgment of this court on the same state of facts in Moran v. Stewart, 122 Mo. 295, and Moran v. Stewart, 132 Mo. 12.
We can now therefore, only reiterate that which we have before three times decided, to wit: That by the deed of adoption in evidence, Bobert and Samuel Stewart became the children of David Moran, capable of inheriting within the meaning of section 4518, E. S. 1889, and therefore the widow was not entitled, at her election, to take one-half the real and personal estate in lieu of dower. The trial court so decided, and rendered judgment for the defendant.
There is no error in the record and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
All concur.