218 Pa. 39 | Pa. | 1907
Opinion by
The question in this case is whether Charles Brandies, whose administrator is appellant, was the adopted son of William Wallace. It appears from the findings of the auditor, approved by the court, that in 1861 William Wallace received from the American Female Guardian Society of New York and took to his home in Stroudsburg, Pa., two orphans, a brother and sister, Charles Brandies and Emily Brandies, aged eight and ten years. Both children were afterwards known by the name of Wallace. Neither Mr. Wallace nor his wife wanted the boy, but the society refused to have him separated from his sister. He lived in the home of Mr. Wallace a short time, when he went to the home of Mrs. Huntsman in the same town. He attended school irregularly and was about Mr. Wallace’s place of business, but performing no services for him, until he became eighteen years of age, when he went to Michigan to live with Mr. Wallace’s brother. He remained there four or five years, when he returned to Stroudsburg, and for a few months acted as a clerk in Mr. Wallace’s store. He went back to Michigan in 18Y6, and died there in 1905. After his return to Michigan he maintained no relation of business or friendship with Mr. Wallace or his family. His conduct had at all times been unsatisfactory to Mr. Wallace, who never expressed an intention to give him the right of an heir. The girl was a member of Mr. Wallace’s family until her marriage, and thereafter their relations were friendly and confidential. Mr. Wallace expressed his intention to make her his heir, and in 1902 presented a petition for her adoption as his daughter, which was proceeded with regularly to final decree. He died intestate in 1903.
If there was an adoption of Charles Brandies, it was effected by the agreement under which he was received from the American Female Guardian Society. The important parts of this agreement, following the recital that Charles Brandies had been surrendered by his parents to the society, and that William Wallace had applied to the managers “ to put out and place the said child with him by adoption and as an ap
Thus far it is an indenture of apprenticeship in the ordinary form. The clause of the agreement upon which the appellant’s claim is based is as follows : “ Although the present instrument binds the above-named child, strictly as an apprentice, it is, nevertheless, the true intention of the parties of the first part to place, and of the party of the second part to receive, said apprentice as an adopted child, to reside in the family of the party of the second part, and to be maintained, clothed, educated and treated as far as practicable, with like care and kindness as if he were in fact the child of the said party of the second part.”
If the fullest meaning of which this clause is susceptible
The decree of the court confirming the report of the auditor is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.