WY AWASTHA-DARPAN A. 866 504 But, although a man, having a legitimate son of the body, or one adopted, Vasvastha or a son's son, or son's grandson (in the male line,) alive and competent to fulfil the „ljert of having a son, cuniio! adopt another son yet he can leave peruvision to his wife to adopt a son in case the existing male issue die without leaving a son, ہج free from any of the legal defects,” ) ... It is a disputed point.” says Sir William Macnaghten, “whether a widow havin, with the sanction of her husband, adoted one son, and such soil dying, she is at liberty to adopt another ۶ د: without having received a conditional permission to that effect from her husband, Averding to the foot/to-no, massi, the art would be clearly illega}; but logo off!}a holds that the second adoption in such ense would be valid, the ohjeet of the first having been defeated.” Although this locurone of Jo, onio is not reptionant to the texts of she legislators, but rather agreeable to the true into ution of their laws, yet is ought to be received in its qualified sense, and accoul. ingly acted upon, namely, if the husband's permission was expressly to adopt only one son, and no uore, even in the event of that adopted son's dying without a son, then, unt withstanding the object of adoption would be defeated by his premature death, the widow should not adopt another, for the husband's permission is, above all, essential to the adoption by a widow, and it was Roy versus Літургій, ( s. l ). A. Rep. ve! f. p. 136. ) aliudefl tn hy the l'anned voiupnlei hunsch. Then as to the pleasure and will of the husband, the exercise of such pleasure or will of his sons to have been completely resilained by the law ; had it not been so, he, while having a son, would have been oniotent to adopt another son. The alsory ati, u of Sir William Macnaghten on the subject in question is correct and accurate It is as follows:-" is is clear. that it mill having adopted a boy, ind that boy being alive, he wantial adopt tttt SLLLS 0LLS LLLLLLL LL LLL LLLLLLLCSCCCCCtttS LL tttSLL LLSSLLLLS S S LLLL S LSSLLSS0 SSSSS LLLS LLL LLLLSttS ttS LLLL LLL LLL ttt SLLSS S t LLLLLLL SLL LLLS LLLLS LLL LLLLL LLL LLCCLLLLL SCLLLSS 0 LL LLS LLLLL 00 LL LLL LLS 0 horn, or one whose som has died, having fasted for a son, Mr. There is a l y teasthá uaintaining the opp igit doctrine, the authority cited for which is a verse ascribed to sland, though not to be sound in the Institutes : " Many sett are to be desired, that some one of them may travel to (oft Hut thi, to st obviously relates to logo mate sons, See the case of (purer Pershaul Itoy v. Јоунtifй. p. 1:6 vi 1 } . Sudder 13, wanny Adaw litt R, ports. - Maci, H. l... vgl. . ) s. 80 - 8. Mr. ('elebrooke observes of a not to S. 1). A. Rel, vol I. p. 42. ) “ that the validity of a second adoption, while another son, whether by birth or adoption, is living, a quotion of w hivi, w ritvrs of eminence have disagreed: that Jupinnitha, in his pigest, inclines to hold it valid has that the author LL LLS LLLLLLLaSCCCTTtLLS L LLLL LL LLLLL LLLLLLS LLLLS LLLLLLLLLS SLLS SLLLLLS 00S C0S LLLS 0S LLS LL added by way of conclusion that, as to writers of such ominvited as that of the Untfuku-Hindings, or LLLLLLSLLLLLLLL LLL LLLLLLgL LL LLLLLLLL LL LLLLL LLLSLLS CCCS 000 LLL LLLLLLLLS LLLL LLLL tttttS tained the invalidity thorous, ) the "pission of Juyunnitha or ally such writor LLttttt LLL LLLL LL LLLS LLLLLL SCSSCS CCCLLS CCSL AA SttS0S0LLS LLLSL 00LLLLCCCCLL LLLLLLLL 00S 00S subject of adoption. more, especially when its doctrine is in exact conformity with the text, of the holy legislators - Manu and the rest. and the opinion of Juyuantitha is quite contrary to them. -
- It seems to be admitted. tlat a hau having a legitiinate son may not only authorist: his wife 10 adopt a son, after his death, failing such legitimate son, but also, failing the won adopted, to adopt another in his stead.---Maen. H. L. vol. i. pp. 83, S4.
