TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Compton v. Compton

Barnes Compton v. Wilson Compton

Compton v. Compton, 2 Gill 241 (1844)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 15, 1844
Judges
Magrudee
Citations
2 Gill 241
Cited by 4 1 descriptions by later courts
Headnotes
It is the duty of the Orphans court in appointing a guardian, to consult the interest, rather than the wishes of an infant. An appeal will not lie from an order of the Orphans court, appointing a guardian.
Summary
Appeal from the Orphans Court of Charles County. On the 5th March 1844, the appellant, a minor, appeared in the Orphans court and prayed to have a guardian appointed, and asked to have Richard Barnes, esq, one of the justices of the said court, to be appointed, who retired from the bench. The court postponed the appointment until the 3rd Tuesday in March, when, on the 19th of that month, the appellee filed a petition, alleging the condition of the appellant’s property, the necessity of a guardian, and institution of legal proceedings to protect the minor’s property and vindicate his rights. The petitioner alleged, that he was the nearest male relation of the minor, and ought to be appointed. The appellant answered this petition, and reiterated his wish to have his relation, Richard Barnes j appointed. On the 23rd March, the court decreed that Wilson Compton be appointed guardian, on giving bond; from which decree Barnes Compton prayed an appeal, by his next friend, Richard Barnes, to this 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 — Magrudee

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

Magrudee, J.,

delivered the opinion of this court.

This appeal must be dismissed: from an order of the Orphans court, appointing a guardian to an infant, no appeal will lie.

It is the duty of the Orphans court, in appointing his guardian, to consult the interests, rather than the wishes of the infant. If the latter was competent, without control, to choose his guardian, it would be scarcely necessary for him to have one. He might also choose his own boarding-house, his instructed, and others whose services he needed. The Orphans court, in the discharge of this duty, may make an injudicious choice; but it is not probable that this court, without any information to assist them, could exercise such a power more judiciously.

From such an order, it would not be more proper for this court to entertain an appeal, than from an order of the county court, granting, or refusing to grant, a new trial.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →
1857–1858: 11889–1890: 11913–1914: 11995–1996: 118572026peak 1857 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sudler v. Sudler88 A. 26 (Md. 1913)
  2. In re adoption/guardianship No. 10935, Circuit Court for Montgomery County679 A.2d 530 (Md. 1996)
  3. Ramsay v. Thompson6 L.R.A. 705 (Md. 1889)
  4. Johnson v. Brannaman10 Md. 495 (1857)

Most recent

  1. In re adoption/guardianship No. 10935, Circuit Court for Montgomery County679 A.2d 530 (Md. 1996)
  2. Sudler v. Sudler88 A. 26 (Md. 1913)
  3. Ramsay v. Thompson6 L.R.A. 705 (Md. 1889)
  4. Johnson v. Brannaman10 Md. 495 (1857)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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