The statutes authorizing the adoption of children quite frequently contain express provisions as to inheritance both by and from an adopted child.81 Apart from any such express provision, the effect of the adoption is ordinarily to entitle the child to inherit from the adoptive parent as if he were the latter's own child,82 and to entitle the child of tin-adopted child to inherit from the adoptive parent.83 But the statutes do not ordinarily operate to give to the adopted child a right to inherit from the kindred of the adoptive parent,84 they frequently containing an ex79. Bates v. Brown, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 710, 18 L. Ed. 535; Cox v. Matthews, 17 Ind. 367; Drake v. Rogers, 13 Ohio St. 21; Melton v. Davidson, 86 Tenn. 129, 5 S. W. 530. The doctrine was formerly recognized in North Carolina. Cutlar v. Cutlar, 2 Hawkes (9 N. C.) 324, but was superseded by the act of 1823. Rutherford v. Green, 2 Ired. Eq. (37 N. C.) 121.

80. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 3136.

81. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law. Sec. 6647.

82. Re Newman, 75 Cal. 213, 7 Am. St. Rep. 146, 16 Pac. 887: Barnes v. Allen, 25 Ind. 222; Merritt v. Morton. 143 Ky. L33, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 139, 136 S. W. 133; Virgin v. Marwick, 97

Me. 578, 55 Atl. 520; Ross v. Ross, 129 Mass. 243, 37 Am. Rep. 321; Morrison v. Estate of Session's, 70 Mich. 297, 14 Am. St. Rep. 500, 38 N. W. 249; Rowan's Estate, 132 Pa. 299. 19 Atl. 82. See editorial note 5 Virginia Law Rev. 349.

83. In re Darling's Estate, 17:; Cal. 221, 159 Pac. 606; Pace v. Klink, 51 Ga. 220; Gray v. Holmes, 57 Kan. 217,33 L R. A. 207, 45 Pac. 596: Power v. Ilafley, 85 Ky. 671. 4 S. W. 683; Herrick's Estate, 124 Minn. 85, 144 N. W. 455; Bernero v. Goodwin, 267 Mo. 427 184 S W. 74; Batchelder v. Walworth, (Vt.)- 82 Atl. 7; See In re Webb's Es tate, 250 Pa. 179. 95 Atl. 419.

84. Van Mat re v. Sankrv.

I11. 536, 23 L R A. 665, 89 Am.

Plicit provision to this effect. The adopted child may, it has been held, inherit from his natural parent as he would have done had he never been adopted.85 But there are decisions to the effect that one cannot inherit from the adoptive parent both as an adopted child and as a blood relative of such parent.86

St. Rep. 196, 36 N. E. 628; Wallace v. Noland. 246 111. 535, 138 Am. St. Rep. 247, 92 N. E. 535; Barnhizel v. Ferrell, 47 Ind. 335; Sunderland b Estate, 60 Iowa, 732, 13 N. W. 655; Merritt v. Morton, 143 Ky. 133, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 139, 136 S. W. 133; Van Derlyn v. Mack, 137 Mich. 146, 66 L. R. A. 437, 109 Am. St. Rep. 669, 100 N. W. 278, 4 Ann. Cas. 879; Hockaday v. Lynn, 200 Mo. 456, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 117, 118 Am. St. Rep. 672, 9 Ann. Cas. 775, 98 S. W. 585; Meader v. Archer, 65 N. H. 214; Phillips v. Mcconica, 59 Ohio St. 1, 51 N. E. 445, 69 Am. St. Rep. 753; Burnett's Estate, 210 Pa. 599, 69 Atl. 74; Batchel-ler-durkee v. Batcheller. 39 R. I. 45, 97 Atl. 378; Helms v. Elliott, 89 Tenn. 446, 10 L. R. A. 635, 14 S. W. 930: Moore v. Moore, 35 Vt. 98. "The ancestors of the adopter are presumed to know their relatives by blood, and to have them in mind in the distribution of their estates, either by will or descent, but they cannot be expected to keep informed as to adoption proceedings in the probate court of the counties of this state; and to allow an adopted child to inherit from the ancestors of the adopter would often put property into the hands of unheard-of adopted children, contrary to the wishes and expectations of such ancestors." Burket, J., in Phillips v. Mcconica, 59 Ohio St. 1, C9 Am. St. Rep. 753.

85. Barnhizel v. Farrell, 47 Ind. 335; Wagner v. Warner, 50 Iowa, 532; Clarkson v. Hatton, 143 Mo. 47, 39 L. R. A. 748, 65 Am. St. Rep. 635, 44 S. W. 761; Upson v. Noble, 35 Ohio St. 655; Compare dicta in Re Jobson's Estate, 164 Cal. 312, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 128 Pac. 938; Re Havsgord's Estate, 34 S. D. 131, 147 N. W. 378. That the adopted son may inherit from his natural grandfather, see In re Darling's Estate, 173 Cal. 221, 159 Pac. 606.

In Indiana it has been d«eided that a child adopted by a husband during his former marriage was a child "by a previous wife" within a statute giving a share in his estate to such a child. Markover v. Krauss, 132 Ind. 294, 17 L. R. A. 806, 31 N. E. 1047; Patterson v. Browning, 146 Ind. 160, 44 N. E. '993.

An adopted child of a deceased devisee has been regarded as "an heir in a descending line" of such devisee within a statutory provision substituting such heir in place of the deceased devisee, so as to prevent a lapse. Clark v. Clark, 76 N. H. 551, 85 Atl. 758; Warren v. Prescott, 84 Me. 483, 17 L. R. A. 435, 30 Am. St.

As regards inheritance from the adopted child, it is occasionally provided by the statute that property acquired by him by gift, devise or descent from the adoptive parent shall pass, upon his death intestate and without issue, to such parent, and in some states that property otherwise acquired by him shall so pass.87 There is at least one decision to the effect that, even in the absence of any statutory provision in this regard, all property of the child, in such case, passes to the adoptive parent, to the exclusion of his blood relatives.88 There are, on the other hand, decisions that all his property passes to his own kindred to the exclusion of the adoptive parent,89 such a view being occasionally based on the fact that the statute, providing in terms that the adopted child should be heir of the adoptive parent, and being silent as to any right of inheritance by the latter, impliedly excluded any such rights.90 In some staterep. 370, 24 Atl. 948. And in Riley v. Day, 88 Kan. 503, 129 Pac. 524 it was held that the adopted child of a deceased child of decedent was "living issue" of such deceased child within a statute providing for descent to living issue of a deceased child. 86. Morgan v. Reel, 213 Pa. 81, 62 Atl. 253; Billings v. Head, 184 Ind. 361, 111 N. E. 177; Delano v. Bruerton, 148 Mass. 619, 2 L. R. A. 698, 20 N. E. 308; Contra, Wagner v. Varner, 50 Iowa, 532. As regards the effect of a second adoption by another person upon the child's right to inherit from him who first adopted him, see editorial notes, 31 Harv. Law Rev. 488; 16 Mich. Law Rev. 119; 5 Virginia Law Rev. 349, commenting on In re Klapp's Estate, 197 Mich. 615, 164 N. W. 381, in which it was decided that the right to inherit under the first adoption was destroyed. Contra, Patterson v. Browning, 146 Ind. 160, 44 N. E. 993.

87. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 6649.

88. In re Jobson's Estate, 164 Cal. 312, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1062, 128 Pac. 938.

89. White v. Dotter, 73 Ark. 130, 83 S. W. 1052; Russell v. Jordan, 58 Colo. 445, 147 Par. 693; In re Namaun, 3 Hawaii, 484; Baker v. Clowser, 158 Iowa, 156, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1056, 138 N. W. 837; Fisher v. Browning, 107 Miss. 729, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 466, 66 So. 132; Reinders v. Koppelman, 68 Mo. 482, 494; Edwards v. rearby, 168 N. C. 663. L. R. A 1916B, 16

S. E. 19; Upson v. Noble, 35 Ohio St. 655; Hole v. Robbins, 53 Wis.

514, 10 N. W. 617

90. Corn v. Powell, 16 W. N.

It is the law that an adoptive parent or his kindred shall take such property as passed to the child from the adoptive parent, while the blood relatives take property which he acquired otherwise.91

The right of inheritance, acquired by a child's adoption in one state will, it has been held, be recognized in another state, in so far as this right is not inconsistent with the laws and policy of the latter state.92