TIBBBIJf V. BACON. 68^ �law of said Edward, one undivided eighth part of the residue of his estate. �The case was submitted npon the bill, the answer of those defendants who made answer, and certain agreed facts, the substance of which is as foUows : Edward G. Tirrell, of Boston^ jnade his last will in 1846, and died in 1857. After a specifie beguest to his wife, he devised the residue of his estate to the defendant Bacon and others, in trust, to pay the income to his wife for life, and at her death to his children during their lives, respectively, in equal shares ; and, upon the decease of each child, to convey and transfer his or her share and portion of the property, real and personal, above devised, etc., to his or her child or children then living, in equal shares, and to- the lawful issue then living of any deceased child of such child ; and in default of any such child, children, or issue then living, to the testator's heirs at law. �The testator left eight children, of whom one was Edward Q. Tirrell, who enjoyed one-eighth part of the income of the trust fund until 1879, when be died, leaving no children, unless the defendant Willie K. Tirrell is to be considered his child. Willie K. Tirrell was duly adopted as a child by Edward Q. Tirrell, in 1874, in accordance with the then exist- ing laws of Massachusetts. �The question raised by the pleadings and statement was,. •whether Willie K. Tirrell took a share of the trust fund as a "child" of Edward Q. Tirrell. �John P. Treadwell, for the heirs of Edward G. Tirrell. John Hillis, for the widow and adopted child. LowBLL, G. J. The law of adoption of children in Massa- chusetts was first enacted in 1851, and modified a few years later in Gen. St., c. 110. In 1871 it was modified in some respects. Under both those laws an adopted child was con- clusively taken to be the equivalent of a legitimate child of the parent or parents who had adopted him, excepting in two particulars. Sewall v. Eoberts, 115 Mass. 262; Burrage v. Briggs, 120 Mass.- 103. The first statute had but one excep- tion, and the law of 1871 added the other. The first was that such child should not take under a limitation to the heira ����
