It seems that this practice was still common in the early 1900's also.
my Jr. High School teachers was known to all by one surname but was
born with another. He was not born out of wedlock, just born into a
in which the parents or surviving parent could not take care of a
child. As an infant
he was "taken in" by another couple to raise and given their name, no
just a name change.
Apparently this was also the case with one of my Grandmothers.
As an infant she appears in the SMITH family, in Cottage Home, as Selva
24 JULY 1910 in Makanda. Shortly thereafter she turned into Opal
born 24 JULY 1910 in Makanda. I have searched endlessly for any type
that might exist with no success. The SMITH couple were married and
had one stillborn child. Ida SMITH's maiden name was COX so the
possibility that they
"took in" the child of a relative seems highly likely. I have so far
found nothing to prove,
or disprove where my Grandmother came from. I also have to wonder (due
circumstances) if it is possible the SMITH's were perhaps not the first
couple to take young
Selva into their household. Maybe she went to live with a COX family
and they discovered they could not deal with an infant(???) and turned
her over to the
So, the search continues...
On Nov 30, 2006, at 2:12 AM, iljackso-request(a)rootsweb.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:52:35 EST
Subject: Re: [ILJACKSO] Name change law
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
...A young person born out of wedlock will be listed with one surname
census, then with a totally new surname in the next census, and they
gone to court. . . In the 1800's people took in children, but never
court to adopt them. I have seen one formal adoption in a deed record