Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

49 Cal. 590

Halett v. Patrick

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1875

California Supreme Court · decided 1875-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Butte.</p> <p>On the 9th day of March, 1870, Abraham T. Enos petitioned the Probate Court of Butte County to be appointed guardian of the person and estate of James Polk Wright. The petition stated that Wright had real and personal property in Butte County, and was insane. The Court issued a citation to Wright to appear, on the 26th day of April, 1870, and show cause against the application. The citation was served, and the Court made an order, on said 26th day of April, appointing Enos, upon his executing and filing a bond in the sum of three thousand dollars, with sureties. On the 11th day of July, 1870, the plaintiff petitioned to be appointed said guardian. The petition contained merely the usual statements that Wright was insane, and had property in Butte County, and made no reference to the former application of Enos. The Court, on said 11th day of July, made an order appointing the plaintiff. The following is the order.</p> <p>“Now on this 11th of July, 1870, it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that said James Polk Wright is insane, and by reason of said insanity incapable of properly managing' his own affairs. It further appearing that said James Polk Wright is a resident of Butte County, now at a private asylum in Alameda County. It further appearing that said James Polk Wright is the owner and possessor of certain real and personal property; and it further appearing that heretofore, viz, on the 18th day of March, a. d. 1870, a petition was filed by one Abraham T. Enos, praying that letters of guardianship of the estate and person of said Janies Polk Wright, and it appearing on proofs adduced that the said James Polk Wright was insane, and incompetent to manage his own affairs, an order was made on the 26th day of April, 1870, appointing the said Abraham T. Enos guardian of the estate and person of the said James Polk Wright, and requiring him to give bonds in the sum of three thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as such guardian. And it further appearing that sufficient time having been given to the said Abraham T. Enos to file said bond, and he having failed to do so, it is ordered that A. Halett, having filed his petition to be appointed guardian of the estate and person of the said James P. Wright, and upon the reading of said petition, and the proofs adduced, it is ordered that the said A. Halett be appointed guardian of the person and estate of the said James P. Wright, upon his filing a bond to said Wright in the sum of two thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties as such gardian.”</p> <p>Halett gave the required bond, and letters were issued to him, and he-entered upon the discharge of his duties, and continued to discharge them until the 9th day of November, 1871, on which day Wright died. On the 30th day of April, 1872, the said Court appointed the defendant administratrix of the estate of Wright. On the 8th day of July, 1872, the plaintiff filed in the Probate Court his report and final account as guardian. The defendant appeared and filed an objection to the account on the ground that Halett was not the legally constituted and appointed guardian. The Court settled the account, and adjudged that there was due the plaintiff from the estate of Wright $440 67. This action was brought to recover said sum. On the trial the defendant objected to the order appointing the plaintiff guardian being received in evidence, on the ground that no citation had been issued, and that, therefore, the Probate Court had not acquired jurisdiction of the person of Wright. The Court overruled the objection.</p> <p>The Court held that Halett’s appointment was void, and rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Wright had his day in court, was notified of the proceeding, and was bound to take notice that Enos failed to qualify, and that the court would appoint another in his stead. Having had one notice of the first step in the proceeding, Wright was bound to take notice of every subsequent step until a guardian was appointed and qualified, or the application otherwise definitely disposed of.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 15 Cal. App. 244 - In Re Tilton

“His appointment was not a step in a new and original proceeding commenced by him, but in the former proceeding commenced by Enos”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 15 Cal. App. 244 - In Re Tilton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1962

12 state decisions

401875188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

¶1On the filing of the petition by Enos, and the service on Wright of the notice required by the statute, the Court acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of insanity and to appoint a guardian. On determining that Wright was insane, the Court had authority to select a guardian, and its discretion in the selection of a proper person was in no degree restricted by the fact that in his petition Enos prayed that he himself be appointed. Under that petition, *595the Court had authority to exercise its discretion as to the person to be appointed. It appointed Enos, coupled with a condition that he execute a proper bond, as required by the statute. The law annexes this condition to the appointment, and the Court had no power to dispense with it. After a sufficient time had been allowed for that purpose, Enos failed to execute the bond, and his appointment remained ineffectual and incomplete. He never became the guardian of Wright, and the proceeding remained in fieri until a guardian was appointed and qualified. The Court did not lose its jurisdiction to appoint a guardian, because the person first selected failed to qualify. Wright had his day in Court, was notified of the proceeding, and was bound to take notice that Enos failed to qualify, and that the Court would appoint another in his stead. Having had one notice of the first step in the proceeding, Wright was bound to take notice of every subsequent step until a guardian was appointed and qualified, or the application otherwise definitely disposed of. The order appointing the plaintiff recites the fact that he was appointed because Enos failed to give the requisite bond. His appointment was not a step in a new and original proceeding commenced by him, but in the former proceeding commenced by Enos. The plaintiff, it is true, file a petition praying that he be appointed guardian; but this was superfluous, as the Court had authority to appoint him without any petition for that purpose; and the order shows on its face that he was appointed in the original proceeding, for the reason that Enos had failed to give the requisite bond.

¶2We are, therefore, of opinion that the appointment of the plaintiff was valid.

¶3Order and judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

/49/cal/590 · .json · Public domain