Taney's Appeal

Decided January 12, 1881

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1881-01-12

118. This was an appeal from a decree of the said court discharging Ellen Taney as guardian of the person of William Rice, a minor, between three and four years of age, and discharging the Eidelity Insurance, Trust and Safe Deposit Company as guardian of his estate. The decree was entered upon the petition of one Mary Rogers, guardian of the said minor, appointed by the Probate Court at Jackson, Michigan, to which Ellen Taney filed an answer.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Residence”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-01-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 1955

4 state decisions

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 →

¶1The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered January 24th 1881,

Per Curiam.

¶2We are of opinion with the learned court below, that both the guardian and ward were residents of the state of Michican, and within the meaning and purview of the Act of April 21st 1856, Pamph. L. 495. If the question regarded the law of succession to the ward’s property the rule might be different. A *78clear distinction exists, as was shown in the able argument of the young gentleman who argued this case for the appellee, between domicile and residence. Every reason of policy and convenience requires the application of the provision of the statute to a case of permanent residence in another state, though in strictness the domicile may remain unchanged.

¶3Decree affirmed, and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.