TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

King v. Dolan

Frances E. King v. Harry F. R. Dolan

King v. Dolan, 151 N.E. 109 (Mass. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 8, 1926
Citations
151 N.E. 109255 Mass. 2361926 Mass. LEXIS 1104

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

By the Court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Probate Court appointing one Dolan one of two guardians of an illegitimate infant. One of the next of kin of the infant had petitioned for the appointment of another person and has appealed from the decree on the grounds that the appointment of Dolan was not requested and was opposed *237 by the next of kin and that he is a partner of the executor of the will of the mother of the infant and the interests of the guardian and such executor appear to be diverse because said infant was not mentioned in the will of his deceased mother.

There is no diversity of interest on the latter ground because an illegitimate child is not included within the meaning of G. L. c. 191, § 20, giving a child omitted from the will of a parent the same share in the estate as if the parent had died intestate unless the facts there stated appear. Kent v. Barker, 2 Gray, 535 . King v. Thissell, 222 Mass. 140 . The will of the mother having been allowed, it would be utterly unwarranted for a guardian of the infant to prosecute litigation under G. L. c. 190, § 5; c. 191, § 20.

The evidence is not reported. The findings of the judge, without reciting them, disclose careful consideration of all aspects of the interests of the infant in reaching his conclusion and fail to indicate any misuse of judicial discretion. The persons appointed as guardians appear to be disinterested and competent. The appointment of guardians rests in the sound judgment of the probate judge, to be exercised with an eye single to the welfare of the ward. Woodworth v. Spring, 4 Allen, 321 . Davis, petitioner, 237 Mass. 47, 49 . The desires of the next of kin are not controlling though of course to be given due weight.

Decree affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1934: 11947: 11976: 11979: 11982: 11985: 11988: 11990: 12005: 12016: 119342026peak 1934 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Guardianship of Bassett385 N.E.2d 1024 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979)
  2. Hanson v. Markham356 N.E.2d 702 (Mass. 1976)
  3. Jennings v. Nathanson404 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Mass. 2005)
  4. Fiduciary Trust Co. v. Mishou75 N.E.2d 3 (Mass. 1947)
  5. In re McKnight550 N.E.2d 856 (Mass. 1990)
  6. Guardianship of B.V.G.52 N.E.3d 988 (Mass. 2016)

Most recent

  1. Guardianship of B.V.G.52 N.E.3d 988 (Mass. 2016)
  2. Jennings v. Nathanson404 F. Supp. 2d 380 (D. Mass. 2005)
  3. In re McKnight550 N.E.2d 856 (Mass. 1990)
  4. Guardianship of Anthony524 N.E.2d 1361 (Mass. 1988)
  5. Lowinger v. Herlihy472 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985)
  6. New England Merchants National Bank v. Spillane442 N.E.2d 421 (Mass. App. Ct. 1982)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
King v. Thissell, 109 N.E. 880 (Mass. 1915) 17
Davis, 129 N.E. 366 (Mass. 1921) 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