Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Galveston term, 1884, and embracing the greater part of the Austin term, 1884. Volume 61. Page: 68
xv, 806 p., 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
68 ORTIZ v. DE BENAVIDES. [Gal]v. Term,
Opinion of the court.
necessary that the instrument through which the adoption is made
must be executed as must be a will.
A learned Spanish writer states that, in order to make a valid
adoption, it is sufficient that the father of the child to be adopted,
with the person adopting, present themselves before some judge and
declare that the one desires to give, and the other to receive, the
child in adoption, and that there shall be given an instrument bearing
evidence of the act. 1 Alvarez Derecho, Real, 82.
In the case of Teal v. Sevier, 26 Tex., 519, the act of adoption
was executed in 1832 before a primary judge acting with two witnesses,
and it was held to be effective to the extent of the disposable
portion.
The record bears evidence of the fact that Jose Gonzales had no
descendants, and is silent as to whether he had ascendants. Such
being the case it must be presumed that such a state of facts existed
as would have authorized him to adopt and thus make Guadalupe
Sanchez his sole heir.
She had been reared in his house, was a niece of his wife, who is
not shown to have been alive at that time, towards whom, in his
childless condition, his affections would extend, as do those of a
father to his child.
The act was one which ordinary affection, under the circumstances,
would prompt.
Whether regarded as a will, or an act of adoption, as evidence of
title, proof of the contents of the instrument should have been permitted
to go to the jury under all the facts in proof in the case.
The instrument being in form such as stated by the witnesses,
even if it did not pass title to Guadalupe Sanchez, if presented
should have been admitted, under all the circumstances, for the purpose
of showing the boundaries to which the law would apply the
adverse possession of the defendants and of those through, whom
they claimed.
The instrument having been lost, the witnesses for the same purpose,
if for no other, should have been permitted to state its contents.
Charle v. Saffold, 1 Tex., 109; Lambert v. Weir, 2T Tex., 365.
The other matters covered by assignments of error relate to the
giving and refusing to give instructions and to other matters which
are not likely to arise on another trial, and they need not now be
considered.
For the errors indicated the judgment is reversed and the ease is
remanded. REVERSED AND REMANE13D.
[Opinion delivered February 8, 1884.1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Galveston term, 1884, and embracing the greater part of the Austin term, 1884. Volume 61., book, 1903; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28513/m1/84/: accessed March 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .