TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guardianship of Lewis

In the Matter of the Guardianship of MABEL IONE LEWIS, a Minor. ALFRED J. LEWIS, Appellant, v. SARAH A. READ, Respondent

Guardianship of Lewis, 70 P. 926 (Cal. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 26, 1902
Docket
No. S.F. No. 2296.
Judges
Garoutte
Citations
70 P. 926137 Cal. 6821902 Cal. LEXIS 634
Headnotes
Guardian of Minor—Appointment—Independent Petitions—Findings.—Where two persons each filed an independent petition for appointment as guardian of a minor, and no answer was filed to either petition, upon a hearing of the two petitions together, no findings were necessary. Id.—Question of Fact—Review upon Appeal.—Where all of the evidence taken upon the hearing of both petitions is brought up by bill of exceptions, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain the appointment made, the decision of the question of fact as to which was the proper person to receive the appointment will not be disturbed upon appeal.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Garoutte

GAROUTTE, J.

is an appeal from an order appointing respondent guardian of the minor, Mabel lone Lewis. Appellant and respondent each filed petitions for letters of guardianship, appellant being the father and respondent the grandmother. These petitions were heard together, and the grandmother’s application for letters was granted. It is first contended that there are no findings to support the allegations of respondent’s petition, and likewise no findings to *683 overthrow the allegations of appellant’s petition. There were no answers filed to these respective petitions, and therefore no issues made which demanded findings of fact.

(In re Heldt, 98 Cal. 553 .) The evidence has all been brought here upon a bill of exceptions, and after reading it the court is prepared to say that the order appointing the grandmother guardian of the person of the minor will not be reversed, upon the ground of lack of evidence to support it. The question as to which one of these two parties was the proper party to be appointed guardian over the person of this child was essentially a question of fact for the trial court, and that court having decided it, and there being substantial evidence to support that decision, this court will not interfere by setting aside the order for lack of evidence.

The order is affirmed.

Harrison, J., and Van Dyke, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1905: 11910: 11920: 11950: 11957: 119052026peak 1905 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Guardianship of Smith306 P.2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  2. Guardianship of Walsh223 P.2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
  3. Hawkins v. Merritt192 P. 30 (Cal. 1920)
  4. In re Estate of Dellow82 P. 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
  5. Brigman v. Cheney1910 OK 316, 112 P. 993

Most recent

  1. Guardianship of Smith306 P.2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
  2. Guardianship of Walsh223 P.2d 322 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)
  3. Hawkins v. Merritt192 P. 30 (Cal. 1920)
  4. Brigman v. Cheney1910 OK 316, 112 P. 993
  5. In re Estate of Dellow82 P. 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Estate of Heldt, 33 P. 549 (Cal. 1893) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list