Meader v. Archer
Meader & A. v. Archer
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Doe, G. J.
Holt’s mother outlived him and owned the land at the time of her death, and the plaintiffs are her next of kin. The defendant is Holt’s adopted son. As Holt had no title, the land did not go to the defendant as Holt’s heir. By the law of the defendant’s adoption, he could inherit property which Holt “could have devised by will.” This land Holt could not have devised. By the same law, “ as to the succession to property,” the defendant stands, “ in regard to the legal descendants, but to no other of the kindred of” Holt, in the same position as if he were Holt’s son. This does not make him an heir of Holt’s mother. No objection being made in argument to the form of action, the question of procedure has not been considered.
Case discharged.
Bingham, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.