In re Estate of Pico

Good Law
52 Cal. 84
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 5364California999 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

*85 The word “ children ” in sub. 2, sec. 1365, Code Civil Procedure, means legitimate children. An illegitimate child, though adopted by his father, as provided in sec. 230 Civil Code, is not entitled to administration upon the estate of his father. He cannot inherit from his father unless acknowledged in the manner prescribed in sec. 1387 Civil Code.

Sec. 230 Civil Code provides for and applies only to the adoption of a minor.

Thom, <& Hoss, for the Respondent.

Suppose the respondent, Romulo, had only been twenty years old on the 1st day of January, 1873, when the law in question took effect! Being a minor, he would then come under the decision in this case, within the meaning and protection of sec. 230.

But from what time would he have been deemed legitimate f Certainly not from the date the Code took effect, but by the terms of the law itself—from the time of his birth—nearly twenty years anterior to the passage of the law.

Does not the statute, therefore, clearly show upon its face that it was intended to be retroactive, so as to embrace cases occurring before its adoption ?

If the Legislature had intended to limit sec. 230 to minors, would it not have said “ the father…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.