The surrender of the child by its parents constitutes a valuable consideration for a promise of adoption; Healy v. Simpson, 113 Mo. 340, 20 S. W. 881; Godine v. Kidd, 64 Hun 585, 19 N. Y. Supp. 335; Lynn v. Hock aday, 162 Mo. 111, 61 S. W. 885, 85 Am. St. Rep. 480.
Where there is a contract for adoption and a sufficient consideration therefor on the part of the child, such contract will be enforced; McElvain v. McElvain, 171 Mo. 244, 71 S. W. 142 ; 8 Hawaii 40.
When an infant child has been released to another, such release is not revocable without sufficient legal reasons ; Janes v. Cleghorn, 54 Ga. 10 ; and unless proceedings to revoke are made promptly, it will be fatal to their maintenance ; Brown v. Brown, 101 Ind. 340.
The right of inheritance. In the District of Columbia the right of inheritance is not included in the rights acquired by adoption ; Moore v. Hoffman, Fed. Cas. No, 9,764 a; In New York it is; Theobald v. Smith, 103 App. Div. 200, 92 N. Y. Supp. 1019. In Ohid an adopted child inherits from the adopting parent but not through him ; Phillips v. Mc Conica, 59 Ohio St. 1, 51 N. E. 445, 69 Am. St. Rep. 753 ; in Illinois such child can take by descent only from the person adopting him and not from lineal or collateral kin dred of the adopting parent; Van Matre v. Sankey, 148 Ill. 536, 36 N. E. 628, 23 L. R. A. 665, 39 Am. St. Rep. 196; Keegan v. Ger aghty, 101 Ill. 26; and see Van Derlyn v. Mack, 137 Mich. 146, 100 N. W. 278, 66 L. R. A. 437, 109 Am. St. Rep. 669, 4 Ann. Cas. 879. In Pennsylvania an adopted child can not take under a devise to "children" as it is not a child by nature ; Schafer v. Eneu, 54 Pa. 304. He is held not to be within a conveyance to "bodily heirs"; Balch v. John son, 106 Tenn. 249, 61 S. W. 289 ; nor is he a lineal descendant ; Com. v. Ferguson, 137 Pa. 595, 20 Atl. 870, 10 L. R. A. 240 ; or lineal issue ; Kerr v. Goldsborough, 150 Fed. 289, 80 C. C. A. 177. The word "child" in a statute relating to adoption has a broader signification than "issue"; Virgin v. Mar wick, 97 Me. 578, 55 Atl. 520; and the adopt ed child has the same right of inheritance as r a natural child ; id. In Massachusetts an adopted child was held to be entitled to take from the deceased son of one of the adopting parents ; Stearns v. Allen, 183 Mass. 404, 67 N. E. 349, 97 Am. St. Rep. 441.
The right of inheritance from adoption arises by operation of law from the acts of the parties in compliance with the statute and not from contract ; Jordan v. Abney, 97 Tex. 296, 78 S. W. 486.
As an adopted child is not a lineal de scendant, a legacy to him will not be exempt ed from payment of the collateral inheri tance tax ; Com. v. Ferguson, 137 Pa. 595,
20 Atl. 870, 10 L. R. A. 240 ; otherwise in New York by statute; In re Butler, 58 Hun 400, 12 N. Y. Supp. 201; but see In re Bird's Estate, 11 N. Y. Supp. 895, where payment of such a tax was required, in the case of a legacy to the child of an adopted child.
The adoptive parent may disinherit the child ; Logan v. Lennix, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 62, 88 S. W. 364; and he has the same un limited power of disposition of his property 'that a natural father has ; Burnes v. Burnes, 132 Fed. 485.
Adopting parents inherit from the child in preference to the natural parents ; Swick v. Coleman, 218 Ill. 33, 75 N. E. 807; Paul v. Davis, 100 Ind. 422 ; see Hyatt v. Pugsley, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 373; Estate of Foley, 1 W. N. C. (Pa.) 301; but this rule is not always followed. In many cases the estate of the deceased child goes to his relatives by blood; Upson v. Noble, 35 Ohio St. 655 ; Com. v. Powel, 16 W. N. C. (Pa.) 297; Hole v. Rob bins, 53 Wis. 514, 10 N. W. 617; Hill v. Nye, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 457. In Pennsylvania, al though the act does in express words con fer the right of inheritance upon the child from the adopting parent, the latter cannot inherit from the adopted child, because "the act does not so declare" ; Com. v. Powel, 16 W. N. C. (Pa.) 297.
A child adopted in one state, where both it and its adopted parent are domiciled, can inherit land in another state having sub stantially similar adoption laws and per mitting adopted children to inherit; Finley v. Brown, 122 Tenn. 316, 123 S. W. 359, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1285; see cases in 65 L. R. A. 186, note ; contra, Brown v. Finley, 157 Ala. 424, 47 South. 577, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 679, 131 Am. St. Rep. 68, 16 Ann. Cas. 778.
To "enact" implies the creating anew of a law which did not exist before; but "adopt," no doubt, implies the making that their own which was created by another, as the adop tion of our statute laws of Great Britain, as they stood, by the Colonial Government; Williams v. Bank, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 539.
The word "adoption" in a state constitu tion providing for a continuance in office of judges in office at the adoption of the con stitution means when it is fully consummated and complete-not inchoate and imperfect; People v. Norton, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 169.
"The primary and natural signification of the word adoption includes both take effect and in force"; People v. Norton, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 169.