[Download] "Ries' Estate. Hull v. Collins Et Al." by Supreme Court of Wisconsin # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Ries' Estate. Hull v. Collins Et Al.
• Author : Supreme Court of Wisconsin
• Release Date : January 07, 1951
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 66 KB

Description

BROWN, Justice. Counsel for respondent, in a motion for rehearing, submits that our construction of sec. 332.07, Stats. does not give adequate weight to the fact that Ch. 218, Laws of 1947, by which that section was enacted, was a revisor's bill and calls to our attention, -- as he did in his original brief, -- sec. 370.01(49), Stats., which reads: ' Construction of Revised Statutes. A revised statute is to be understood in the same sense as the original unless the change in language indicates a different meaning so clearly as to preclude judicial construction. And where the revision bill contains a note which says that the meaning of the statute to which the note relates is not changed by the revision, the note is indicative of the legislative intent.' Counsel then urges that the former statute 322.07 had been construed by this court, notably in the Estate of Sauer, 1934, 216 Wis. 289, 257 N.W. 28, to mean that a child did not lose his right to inherit from his natural relatives by reason of adoption, and he submits that the language of the new statute does not indicate a different meaning so clearly as to preclude judicial construction. He also relies upon the committee comment which he interprets to say that the meaning of the statute is not changed by the revision. The comment to which counsel refers is: '* * * This revision is an attempt to restate briefly and clearly the meaning which the court has read into 322.07. In the Sauer case the court said that this statute 'does not deny to the adopted child the right to inherit from its natural parents,' (page 291 [of 216 Wis., page 29 of 257 N.W.]) and therefore the court decided that 'An adopted child does not lose his right to inherit from his natural parents' (syllabus). Hence in this revision that meaning is plainly stated.' Counsel contends that this comment is the equivalent of the note referred to in sec. 370.01(49), Stats., and is indicative of the legislative intent. We do not think this helps him. His argument depends upon an assumption that the pre-revision law, declared by the court in Estate of Sauer, (supra) , was that an adopted child retained the right to inherit from all natural relatives. If the legislative committee had thought the Sauer case said that, surely its note would have stated that the court had read that meaning into the statute; and if the committee or the legislature wanted to carry that meaning into the revised statute it would have made the exception in the statute read: '(4) The adopted child does not lose the right to inherit from his natural relatives', or something to like effect. But, instead, the committee comment, stating its understanding of our decisions, stops with inheritance from parents and its revised statute makes inheritance from 'parents', not 'natural relatives' the sole exception (material to this case) to the changed status of the adopted child. The committee comment, so far from helping respondent, destroys her basic assumption that the law before the revision, as understood by the legislature and reiterated by the revision, included natural relatives in addition to parents.

Ebook Free Online "Ries' Estate. Hull v. Collins Et Al." PDF ePub Kindle