IV. The Chancellor's opinion and order, with respect, violate Mississippi Constitution, Section 90(i, j), and deprive defendants of property contrary to Sections 14 and 24 of Mississippi Constitution and the due process of law clause and the equal protection of the laws clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Sheffield v. Barry, 14 So.2d 417; Wall v. McEnnery, supra; Baumann v. Kushion, 129 P. 986; St. Vincent's Inf. Asylum v. Cent. Wis. Trust Co., supra; In re Reimer's Estate, 145 Wn. 172, 259 P. 32; In re Benton's Estate, 10 Wn. 533, 39 P. 145; Fields v. Fields, supra; 1 Am. Jur. 629; 2 C.J.S. 368, 368(c); Florida Statute, Adoption, Sec. 72.06. V. To affirm this ruling as to specific performance will open a veritable Pandora's box of trouble in Mississippi.
In order to effect an adoption, the adoptive parent must, under French law, be over forty years of age, and the adopted child must be less than five years of age.[1] Adoption is a creature of statute, and the court's authority must be measured by statutory law. In re Adoption of Reinius, 55 Wn.2d 117, 346 P.2d 672; In re Smith's Estate, 49 Wn.2d 229, 299 P.2d 550, 63 A.L.R. 2d 299; In re Adoption of Hope, 30 Wn.2d 185, 191 P.2d 289; In re Adoption of Sipes, 24 Wn.2d 603, 167 P.2d 139; In re Adoption of Blake, 21 Wn.2d 547, 151 P.2d 825; State ex rel. Van Cleave v. Frater, 21 Wn.2d 231, 150 P.2d 391; In re Adoption and Change of Name of a Minor, 191 Wn. 452, 71 P.2d 385; In re Nelms, 153 Wn. 242, 279 P. 748; In re Reimer's Estate, 145 Wn. 172, 259 P. 32; Platt v. Magagnini, 110 Wn. 39, 187 P. 716. The French proceedings, being directly contrary to French statutes, are, therefore, void.
Scruggs Scruggs, Guntersville, and R. G. Kelton, Oneonta, for appellees. The only method of legal adoption is by strictly following the statute, and clear mandatory statutory proceedings do not permit of equitable repeal. Code 1886, § 2367; Rivers v. Rivers, 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 764; In re Reimer's Estate, 145 Wn. 172, 259 P. 32; St. Vincent's Infant Asylum v. Central Wisconsin Trust Co., 189 Wis. 483, 206 N.W. 921; Carter v. Capshaw, 249 Ky. 483, 60 S.W.2d 959; Luker v. Hyde, 253 Ala. 283, 45 So.2d 32; Marietta v. Faulkner, 220 Ala. 561, 126 So. 635. Where, as in this case, the action is based upon an alleged instrument which is not produced, the same degree of proof is required as is necessary for the establishment of a parol contract within the statute of frauds, and the existence and terms of the contract must be shown by clear, definite and unequivocal evidence. Box v. Box, 243 Ala. 437, 10 So.2d 478; Mould v. Rohm, 274 Ill. 547, 113 N.E. 991; Lamb v. Feehan, Mo., 276 S.W. 71. The proceedings in the instant case show that the question is with respect to the title to land and therefore the statute of frauds must be complied with in order to have a decree of specific performance.
The only method of legal adoption is by strictly following the statute. Rivers v. Rivers, 240 Ala. 648, 200 So. 764; In re Reimer's Estate, 145 Wn. 172, 259 P. 32; St. Vincent's Infant Asylum v. Central Wis. Trust Co., 189 Wis. 483, 206 N.W. 921; Carter v. Capshaw, 249 Ky. 483, 60 S.W.2d 959; Code 1886, § 2367. No presumption will be indulged in favor of adoption papers.
The former does not in and of itself make the child the child or heir of the promisor, but in some jurisdictions the latter by virtue of a statute constitutes an act of adoption attended by the same consequences as follow from a decree of adoption rendered in judicial proceedings prescribed by statute. 1 Am. Jur. 629, Sec. 15; 633, Sec. 26. But there is no statute in this state and none in Georgia so far as we are advised which authorizes a party or parties to adopt a child by a mere private declaration or contract; and in the absence of such a statute, it cannot be done; because to allow it would be contrary to the public policy of the state as declared by the statutes of descent and distribution, which include the adoption statute, 2 C.J.S., Adoption of Children, Sec. 1, p. 368; Id., Sec. 27, p. 402; 1 C.J. 1371 and 1373; Rahn v. Hamilton, 144 Ga. 644, 87 S.E. 1061; In re Reimer's Estate, 145 Wn. 172, 259 P. 32; Caulfield v. Noonan, 229 Iowa 955, 295 N.W. 466. See Albring v. Ward, 137 Mich. 352, 100 N.W. 609.