In Re Moore

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

In Re Moore

14 R.I. 38, 1882 R.I. LEXIS 11

DecidedDecember 2, 1882

StatusPublished

This text of 14 R.I. 38 (In Re Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Moore, 14 R.I. 38, 1882 R.I. LEXIS 11 (R.I. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appéal from a decree of the Municipal Court of the city of Providence, the Court of Probate of said city, dismissing the petition of the appellant for leave to adopt Charles Moore Sheldon, “ a male child of William BL Sheldon,” born May 4, 1848. The petition was dismissed by the court below because it was of the opinion that it has jurisdiction only to grant leave to adopt infant or minor children. We think this opinion is correct, inasmuch as the language of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 164, which confers or denies the jurisdiction and prescribes the course of procedure, seems to us to be intended to apply only in respect of infant or minor children. It is true the word “ child ” is sometimes applied indifferently to adults and minors, but more frequently only to minors. We can but think that if the General Assembly had intended to have the jurisdiction extend to adults, it would have used language somewhere in the chapter clearly importing the. intent. The decree of the court below is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appéal from a decree of the Municipal Court of the city of Providence, the Court of Probate of said city, dismissing the petition of the appellant for leave to adopt Charles Moore Sheldon, “ a male child of William BL Sheldon,” born May 4, 1848. The petition was dismissed by the court below because it was of the opinion that it has jurisdiction only to grant leave to adopt infant or minor children. We think this opinion is correct, inasmuch as the language of Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 164, which confers or denies the jurisdiction and prescribes the course of procedure, seems to us to be intended to apply only in respect of infant or minor children. It is true the word “ child ” is sometimes applied indifferently to adults and minors, but more frequently only to minors. We can but think that if the General Assembly had intended to have the jurisdiction extend to adults, it would have used language somewhere in the chapter clearly importing the. intent. The decree of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 R.I. 38, 1882 R.I. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-moore-ri-1882.